1992-05-05

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the calendar year 1991, pursuant to section 66 of the Official Languages Act.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), this document is deemed to be permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.


LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Parliamentary Librarian for the fiscal year ended March 21, 1991.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the second report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in relation
to Bill C-7, an act respecting the status of the artist and professional relations between artists and producers in Canada.


JUSTICE AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
In accordance with its order of reference of Thesday, November 5, 1991 your committee considered Bill C-36, an act respecting corrections and the conditional release and detention of offenders and to establish the Office of Correctional Investigator, and has agreed to report it with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia, who are calling upon the Government of Canada to ensure that the RCMP has adequate funding so that it can fulfil its mandate and its role as the only visible police force for communities across British Columbia and remain a viable symbol of Canadian unity.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley) Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition which calls upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government; the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by a
[Stage Direction]
May 5, 1992
Government Orders
majority of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada together with a majority vote in a majority of provinces with the Territories being given the status of one province.
It is signed on April 2 by about 46 constituents.
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to present a petition on behalf of my constituents.
Throughout Saanich-Gulf Islands it is at this time of constitutional malaise that these constituents do petition the House of Commons, asking for a referendum of the people with particular concern about how the majority of any referendum vote will be determined.
This is a concern throughout Saanich-Gulf Islands. There is no complacency in Saanich-Gulf Islands on the constitutional question.


QUESTIONS OF THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under provisions of Standing Order 52 to seek leave of the House to adjourn for the purpose of debating an issue of urgent national importance.
Yesterday evening Toronto witnessed an outpouring of violent emotion, partly in response to the shooting death of a man of colour by the Toronto police.
The impact of these events is not limited to Toronto. Men, women and children of all colours but particularly our youth, all across Canada, are concerned and frightened over the implications of this event in a series of events. They need to know how their governments will respond and what is proposed to ameliorate the pressures which may have precipitated this situation.
I submit that a debate in this Parliament with a discussion of the complex surrounding issues is urgently required and is desired by our constituents and is fully appropriate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Trinity-Spadina has given me notice of this particular application for emergency debate. I would ask the House's indulgence to let me consider it for at least a period of time. I will report back to the House as soon as I can.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Monique Vezina (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-70, an act to amend the Criminal Code (jury), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-70 which amends the Criminal Code provisions regarding the jury selection process.
Under the current law the Crown is in all cases entitled to challenge without giving reason or peremptorily up to four prospective jurors and to stand by up to 48 prospective jurors in the course of jury selection.
The accused is not entitled to stand by prospective jurors but is entitled to premptorily challenge 20, 12 or 4 prospective jurors, depending on the seriousness of the charge against the accused.
On January 23, 1992 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a judgment in the case of Regina v. Bain which held that the provisions of the Criminal Code that allow the Crown to stand aside prospective jurors were contrary to the charter.
A majority of the Supreme Court held that the disparity between the rights of the Crown and those of the accused create an apprehension of bias in favour of the Crown because the prosecutor appeared to have a
May 5, 1992

Government Orders
greater ability than the accused to fashion a favourable jury.
I am happy to say that there are only very few reported instances of a Crown prosecutor exercising in an unfair or abusive manner the right to stand by a juror. However, as the Supreme Court has pointed out, it is important that justice be seen to be done in the jury selection process, not only that actual justice be done.
Bill C-70 would enhance the appearance of fairness in the jury selection process and would bring it into line with modem reality.
More specifically the proposed amendments would repeal the right of the Crown to stand by a prospective juror.
The bill would provide the Crown and the accused with an equal number of peremptory challenges and, where there are multiple accused to be tried together, would provide the Crown with a number of challenges equal to the total number available to all the accused.
The bill would require the Crown and the accused to alternate in being first to indicate whether they challenge or are content with a prospective juror.
It would permit the judge to excuse a prospective juror from jury duty if the juror has essentially a conflict of interest or on grounds of personal hardship or, for that matter, any other reasonable cause.
It would permit the judge to stand by a prospective juror on grounds of personal hardship.
It would repeal those sections of the Criminal Code which provide for juries in Yukon and Northwest Territories to be composed of a smaller number of jurors than in the rest of the country.
The bill goes further than responding to the Supreme Court of Canada decision. The alternation between the accused and the Crown prosecutor in being first to indicate whether they challenge or are content with a prospective juror, and the discretion given to the trial judge to stand by or to excuse a prospective juror for reasons listed in the bill, will further ensure that the jury selection process is a balanced one, a fair one, and an impartial one, one that neither favours the Crown nor the accused.
This bill would also repeal some sections of the Criminal Code which provide, as I indicated, for juries in Yukon and Northwest Territories to be composed of six jurors rather than the usual twelve.
The smaller jury was traditionally justified on the basis of the sparseness of the population of the territories and the great distance between isolated communities. Times have changed and these provisions are no longer necessary as an accused in the territories can now readily be provided with a 12-person jury to which an accused in the rest of Canada is entitled.
The jury is one of the most respected and long-standing institutions of our system of criminal justice. Indeed the right to trial by jury for offences carrying a penalty of five years of imprisonment or more is enshrined in section 11(f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The jury provides the primary opportunity for many Canadians to participate in our justice system and at first hand to see the criminal justice system at work. Every effort must be made to ensure that the jury selection provisions of the Criminal Code reinforce the confidence that Canadians have in a fair and impartial criminal justice system.
On July 23 the stand aside provisions of the Criminal Code will no longer be in effect. The Supreme Court of Canada has suspended the effect of its decision for six months in order to permit Parliament to amend the Criminal Code. It has not provided for the possibility of an extension of the transitional period.
Failure to enact new jury provisions before July 23 would have the potential to leave the Crown at a distinct disadvantage in the jury selection process once the suspension of the judgment is lifted on that date.
It is important therefore to clarify and establish the rights of the Crown in this regard quickly. For this reason I am seeking the co-operation of the House in ensuring that this bill which deals with the working of an important institution of the criminal justice system is passed expeditiously.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of my party, we are prepared to co-operate with the government in the so-called expeditious passing of this legislation.

Government Orders
However we do want to study it and go through the regular steps. I can assure the hon. parliamentary secretary that we will not be delaying this bill. We will not be offering a great number of speakers in the hope that this bill can go to committee, be dealt with expeditiously there, and returned to the House to be passed.
I would like to say to the parliamentary committee that it seems that the government with respect to the Criminal Code is placing the House in the position far too often where we have to make these changes because the courts have decreed that certain parts of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional, in this case against section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I think it is unfortunate but what it does say is that the government is continually slipping behind the needs of our society with respect to reform of this very important piece of legislation.
The Criminal Code is the basis of our criminal justice system. It has needed to have an overhaul and change for quite some time now. The committees have been studying it. In fact the Law Reform Commission was in the process of such a study. It completed the first part, but it was not able to complete the second part before it was so cavalierly terminated.
The minister has assured us that what the Law Reform Commission was studying will be finished, but we do not know to what quality or to what extent. I think that is unfortunate. It is veiy unfortunate.
The case the Supreme Court of Canada made in January for turning down the inequity which existed for the accused by giving the prosecutor a decided advantage over the defence lawyer respecting challenges and the standing by of prospective jurors is unquestionably obvious. It is something that really needed to be done and I am pleased it has been done.
I only feel it is unfortunate that it took a decree of the Supreme Court of Canada to do it; not only a decree but a time limit whereby the Supreme Court of Canada has said this has to be done within six months and there will not be any extensions. Unfortunately this is the way this government has to be treated. It has to be talked to a like a bad boy or a bad girl in school: "You are naughty. Will you please look at the work that has to be done on this Criminal Code?"
We are getting this piecemeal. We are getting bits and pieces. As one aspect of the Criminal Code comes before the courts and is studied by the courts it is determined unconstitutional, and in this case rightly so. Then we get legislation dealing with this particular aspect, this small aspect of the Criminal Code, and go through the motions. It is before the House and we deal with it in the House. That goes through and it is changed. Sooner or later if this government were in power-and of course it will not be-I think the whole Criminal Code would be amended by the year 2030. By then we will have continued falling further and further behind.
Instead of studying the problems that face our society and the needs of our society, this government is falling further and further behind, playing catch-up at the request of a decision of the Supreme Court, as a result of a disturbance in a major city in this country, or as the result of something that becomes so painfully obvious to Canadian society that the people of Canada just will not accept inaction. We have seen that in the case of gun control.
I would recommend and hope the parliamentary secretary would do what he could to try to convince the minister to be forthcoming in changes to the Criminal Code before the government is dictated to by the Supreme Court of Canada or before public opinion becomes so overwhelming on a point that the government is left no choice.
As the parliamentary secretary and I have said, this is the result of the Supreme Court decision in January 1992 wherein the Supreme Court of Canada decided the right of the accused to a presumption of innocence and to a fair and public hearing by an independent and partial tribunal was being infringed. It used section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the basis of that. It has also said that any change to the present legislation must be done within she months if the government is to act at all.
Major points are made in this bill. It repeals provisions which permit the prosecutor to stand by a prospective juror and to provide an equal number of peremptory challenges to the accused and the prosecutor, as the parliamentary secretary has said. If the proposal brought forward to the government is fair, both the prosecutor and the solicitor for the accused will be allowed the same
May 5, 1992

number. If there is more than one accused then the total of the number of the standbys of the lawyer of the accused will equal that of the prosecutor. It also gives the judge certain rights.
The parliamentary secretary is correct in saying the court did not decree certain rights. It did not decree the respective provision dealing with the number of jurors in Yukon and Northwest Territories, that the number of jurors would be increased from six to twelve. Neither did the judge decree this bill would be so many pages or that it would be printed on white paper. The fact is that it is ludicrous that this government does so little that is unrequired by court decision or strong public opinion or so little that is imaginative that anything at all, anything that is any way outside the language of what it is absolutely compelled to do, is a revelation and an example of ingenuity to this government.
Frankly it has reached the preposterous stage. I think that what we are seeing in Canada, what we have created through our charter, our Law Reform Commission and our Court Challenges Program, is going to cause a further erosion because these bodies have been done away with.
The Law Reform Commission has been done away with. The Court Challenges Program has been done away with. Because we do not have those bodies to create the thought processes, to trigger the ideas in this government, frankly we are going to be falling further behind.
Fortunately we are still left with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and hopefully through the constitutional negotiations this vital document will be strengthened. I do not think any member of Parliament would not have that as a fondest hope.
I do want to say once again that the credit that we have received in recent months because of decisions that have come forward from our Supreme Court, once again emphasizing the excellent court system we have in this country. In decisions such as the Butler case on obscenity laws, it has been decided by the Supreme Court that obscenity can be directly related to violence against
Government Orders
women and children. It was a very important decision, one which has been hailed around the world.
Because we have these decisions we are now able to say that our justice system is working well. We had, as we had before Bill C-46, a Law Reform Commission that initiated the thought behind the Contraventions Act in 1976 we now have, 16 years later, the thinking that is presented in Bill C-46. We would not have had the obscenity case. We would not have had the Butler case if we had not had the Court Challenges Program.
We do not have the Court Challenges Program any more. We do not have the Law Reform Commission and we are, as a country, in fact poorer for it.
I do not know where the originality that the government is going to need to keep up to the pace of this community, the new Canada, is going to come from. Frankly, I am very concerned about that having seen as I am seeing now our justice system falling further and further behind. The government has been taken kicking and screaming into the innovations that have been brought forward by the Law Reform Commission, the Court Challenges Program, our courts, and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Having lost two of those eight very important organizations, the government is going to slip further and further behind the needs of the criminal justice system in this country.
I would hope that the next piece of legislation that comes before this House on the Criminal Code will be more extensive, will deal with more than what is mandated by the Supreme Court or by public opinion and that the government will do something that whl broaden the justice system in dealing with the concerns and needs of Canada as they exist at the present time.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in this debate on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
Bill C-70, an act to amend the Criminal Code, deals with juries. The jury is one of the most interesting aspects of our political and legal culture. The jury is the great invention of the anglo law system, the British law system.
It is an old mechanism, and people swear by it. It can bring real justice. It can also result in, as we saw in Los

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
Angeles and outside Los Angeles, a jury making what many believed to be a rather odd decision, given the videotaped evidence that most of us saw on television.
You never know what a jury is going to do. The Morgentaler jury brought access to abortion in this country. At least it started the process when ordinary people on the jury kept rebelling against government laws with respect to abortion. Very interesting. The jury is an old mechanism.
I have had the unique privilege as a Crown counsel and defence counsel before I was a member of Parliament to actually help choose a jury. It was my responsibility as Crown counsel, and I worked on choosing a jury as defence counsel. I myself actually served on a jury.
If you are a lawyer or in various other professions, in other jobs, you are excluded from serving on a jury but I wanted to get a feeling of what a jury was like so when I was a young lawyer, I managed to get on a jury in Vancouver. It was a coroner's jury investigating a fire. I will never forget it.
Five poor old guys in the skid row area of Vancouver were killed in a fire. I went to the coroner and said: "We have had too many of these fires. We have to investigate it". He said: "I am going to investigate it". Glen McDonald was the name of the coroner in Vancouver at the time, and he said: "I want to investigate that".
I said: "Great". He said: "I am going to choose a jury and put you on it". I said: "You cannot put me on the jury. I am a lawyer". He said: "Under the Coroner's Act, you can go on the jury and you should go on the jury".
I remember I went to my partner in the storefront lawyer operation at the time, who is now the premier of British Columbia, and said to him: "What do you think? Should I get on this jury?" He said: "Yes, get on the jury. You might learn something". I got on the jury and I learned a little bit about how juries operate from the inside. It was very interesting.
This bill deals with juries. The problem is: under the present law, the Crown counsel-that is the lawyer representing the Queen or the Crown-the government has, as the parliamentary secretary said in opening this debate, four challenges. Then he or she has a number of stand asides. He or she can say: "No, I do not want that juror. Stand aside. I do not like the colour of his or her
eyes, or whatever. Stand aside". I think it is up to 48 stand asides.
The defence counsel does not have stand asides. The defence counsel can make some challenges. They can make a certain number of challenges, but it is not an equal system.
Basically, as the member from Cape Breton, the Liberal justice critic said, this bill repeals the provisions which permit the prosecutor to stand aside a prospective juror. The stand aside is gone for the prosecution, and then it provides an equal number of peremptory challenges to the accused counsel and to the prosecution.
That is a more equal system, and it follows what the Supreme Court has told this Parliament to do. That is interesting, is it not: The Supreme Court has told Parliament what to do. I will come back to that and speak about it.
I want to put this view out. I had a chance to talk to a distinguished criminal lawyer this weekend in Toronto, Clayton Ruby. Mr. Ruby suggested this, and I put it forward to the House. Why give the Crown any challenges at all? The Crown makes the law. We are making a law now. The Crown, the government, has got control. It is going to make the law. The government makes the law. The government sets out the penalty in the Criminal Code. The government controls the police which go out and apprehend people.
When people are apprehended, put in jail and brought to trial, the government chooses the judges that the accused are going to go before. Then, the judge sits in a court that is set up and administered by the government. The government brings the charges. It puts the charges before the court. At this point the government has done everything. The poor accused is in front of the court.
Under our system we have developed a jury system. We do not have juries in every case, and we are getting less and less juries actually, but in serious cases the accused is entitled to choose a jury trial. Why should the government not just take 12 people from the citizens and say: "You are the jury. Now we are going to bring this accused in front of our courts with our charges in front of you and you the jury decide whether the accused is guilty of those charges".

Then the role of the prosecutor, the Crown counsel, would be the traditional role, and that is to see that justice is done, to bring the person before the court to present the evidence against that accused. That Crown counsel has a different duty than the defence counsel. It is not the Crown counsel's job to get a conviction necessarily. It is the Crown counsel's job to see that justice is done, to present the evidence fairly.
It is when Crown counsel start acting like they are the big Mr. prosecutors, that they are the hard line Crown counsel who are going to get a prosecution come hell or high water that the justice system gets out of whack. I do not have to mention cases like Milgaard or a number of other cases daily in Canadian courts.
One can argue that it is a different duty on defence counsel. The duty on defence counsel is to defend that accused come hell or high water because the state has just so many powers that the defence counsel has to fight within the law, the law of evidence, within the legal ethics and so on, has to fight for the interest of the accused. One therefore can argue that it should be the defence that gets to put challenge to jurists who are seen clearly to the defence to be biased or would not give a fair consideration of the evidence. It should be the defence counsel that challenges and not the Crown at all.
This notion of equality may not be the right principle. I put that out for the House. I will be honest, I know I have got an uphill argument on it.


An hon. member:: I think so too, a slight incline.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Nevertheless it is worth considering, is it not?
I will ask my friend, the member for Brant, to consider that there are just so many arrows in the quiver of the Crown compared to the defence. As I said, the government makes the law, sets the penalty, controls the police, chooses the judges, sets out the court system, brings the charges. It was outrageous that the government even with that system had a further leg up by more stand asides.
As I said, this bill equalizes that somewhat. It is in response to the case of Regina v. Bain, the Supreme Court decision which ruled that subsections 634(1) and (2) are inconsistent with section 11(d) of the charter in so
Government Orders
far as they provide the Crown with a combination of peremptory challenges and stand-bys that is more than four times the number permitted the accused. Since I brought in a plain languages bill and will be talking about that all week I had better translate that into plain language.
The court said there cannot be an unequal system between the Crown and the accused. That is against the Charter of Rights. That is the translation in plain language.


An hon. member:: That sounds much better.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Supreme Court noted and I quote: "The observer or the process is bound to conclude that absence on control, the Crown possesses a substantial advantage and can effectively influence the make-up of the jury under partisan considerations".
The court gave Parliament six months to bring forward a reply. I will return to that in a moment because the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys made the point that once again this government and this Parliament is responding to the court rather than enacting legislation before the court has to come in and tell us to do things.
I want to point out to the government and to this House that for the most part these proposals were included in a working paper by the Law Reform Commission. Remember that? That is the body the government is going to abolish. This is the second justice bill in a row we are dealing with that stems from reports of the Law Reform Commission.


An hon. member:: It had too many bright ideas.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In other words, a workable commission that was suggesting proposals and now, of course, the government is going to get rid of it.
Looking back at the 1980 report, "The Jury and Criminal Trials," it was also included in a finalized recommendation in the Law Reform report of March 16, 1982. I have copies of that report for the House if any members would like to see it. That working paper notes:
The peremptory challenge is one tool by which the accused can
feel that he or she has some minimal control over the make-up of
the jury, no matter how illogical or irrational.
That is interesting. It ties in with some of the arguments I was making earlier that Mr. Ruby had suggested.

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
The proposed legislation calls for four peremptory challenges by both the accused and the prosecutor in lesser charges in keeping with the existing statutes. The Law Reform Commission report recommended a minimum of 12 when one individual has been charged. The legislative committee may want to look at the number. The Law Reform Commission puts forward one argument and there may be others.
The Law Reform Commission recommended in section 9 of its proposal that co-accused persons who are to be jointly tried have fewer peremptory challenges than they would if tried separately. The government seems to have the right idea on this point by maintaining the same number of peremptory challenges whether tried separately or together. The legislative committee may want to look at this matter.
As I said, this is not the first time that Parliament has been forced to look at legislation in haste as a result of a court ruling. The government has been reluctant to pursue its responsibilities or is unable to do so.
The Minister of Justice made a very interesting speech at the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She said:
I have begun to note a very disquieting trend among legislators to leave difficult decisions to the courts. There is a great temptation to avoid dealing with contentious issues by saying: "Let us wait until the courts tell us we have to do it".
Here we are in the House responding to what the courts have told us we have to do. Exactly what the Minister of Justice feared is happening. Of course the logical question is: "Why did you not act sooner? You had the Law Reform Commission report since 1980 and 1982".
This abdication of parliamentary responsibility results in increased pressure on the courts and there have been other cases. Look at the Swain decision. We had to react on that this year. That was the case where they threw out the insanity laws. A report from the Law Reform Commission has been around since, I believe, the early 1970s, and Parliament did not act. The courts ruled and suddenly we had a bill in Parliament. That is exactly what is happening here.
Madam Justice Claire LHeureux-Dube said that the quality of justice is suffering because the courts have become buried in an avalanche of important cases involving the charter.
The minister has said: "We must not forget that it is the legislatures not the courts which are in the best position to assess competing demands and to conduct the necessary balancing of interests." I agree with that and many people do. It should be Parliament that should be acting.
Now we have a charter. The courts are there and doing a fine job, but it is ultimately Parliament in our system that is responsible.
There are other examples where we can act now. I want to conclude by saying let us not repeat this situation.
I will give another example and I predict to the government that we are going to run right into it. Six years ago, the government committed itself to take action to ensure "that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination in relation to all areas of federal jurisdiction". There are now cases before the courts that specifically refer to this concern and the government keeps ducking it. It keeps refusing to deal with it.
Haig and Birch v. Regina is one example. At the Ontario court level the justice ruled that "the absence of sexual orientation from the list of proscribed grounds of discrimination in-the Canadian Human Rights Act-is discriminatory as being contrary to the guarantee of equal benefit of the law as set out in section 15 of the Constitution."
The minister appealed that decision, even though the government gave a commitment which anticipates the very ruling that it appealed from. Why delay? The government is going to run into this. If it goes to a higher court and the higher court is going to rule the same way, we are going to be told in the House: "Well, you had better get moving. You had better enact a law".
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has backed up this ruling in its yearly report to Parliament. The most recent report stated: "The question of sexual orientation is perhaps the most glaring example of legislation lagging
May 5, 1992

behind social realities and the fundamental premise that all human beings are equal in their rights".
It is that the Canadian Human Rights Act remains conspicuously silent about discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is despite repeated recommendations from this commission and a committee of Parliament that the law be changed and despite half a decade of promises by the government.
The minister, as previous Ministers of Justice, has promised to take action. On April 11, 1991 in this House in response to a question from my friend, the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, the Liberal justice critic, the minister said that this and other amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act would be ready within the calendar year. That was April 11, 1991. We are now in May 1992 and that did not happen.
The minister said: "I think realistically, early fall". That did not happen. More recently she said in the House that she would bring forward changes by the time we rise for summer. I encourage her to do so.
I will give the parliamentary secretary for the minister a copy of an editorial from the Vancouver Province. It states:
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney does a wonderful job acting appalled by the crackdown on gays in the '60s. Now it's time to do something about it.
Six years ago, Mulroney promised to end discrimination against homosexuals. Now he's acting sincere again, with the news that the RCMP conducted a witch-hunt against homosexual government employees, netting thousands of people who weren't even civil servants.
Mulroney's next move should be obvious. Amend the Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Until that happens, spare us the sincerity.
I am not debating that issue today. I am just saying to the government that there is another issue in which we are going to be back in this House responding to the courts.
Let us be ahead of the courts. Let us respond to these issues. Let us take our responsibilities seriously as the minister said. I am prepared to agree on behalf of the New Democratic Party to this bill, although I advanced a new argument that would change it quite differently. That is worth thinking about and worth considering. The
Government Orders
bill will now go to committee and we can look at all these matters. It is overdue.
At the very least, we can have equality between the prosecution and the defence. In the end, I trust it will bring a fair system of justice in Canada. I am proud of the Canadian justice system but there are many changes that have to be made. This is one of the areas that we can look upon in this ancient and honourable tradition of the jury.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the parliamentary secretary for the government House leader is not in the House at the present time. It was my understanding that the next bill to be called was Bill C-69, the anti-terrorism provisions which would amend the Criminal Code. If I am mistaken, I apologize to the House. However, it is my understanding that was the bill to follow the one we have just completed.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, what my colleague says is absolutely correct. If there is agreement there is no problem within the House. I believe there have been discussions along that line. We would be prepared to proceed with Bill C-69 at this time with the assistance of my hon. friend.


Mr. Wappel:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the parliamentary secretary asked whether there was a problem. There is a problem but not one that I am going to hold up the House on.
I want to state that there is a problem. I am here because it was my understanding we were proceeding with Bill C-71 immediately after Bill C-70. I left an important committee meeting with representatives of the police force of my city in order to be here. It is going to be delayed further and while I am not going to make a stink about it, I want the record to show that it is most

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
inconvenient. I wish the government would get its act together.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, my information was that there had been discussions with the hon. member's colleagues and that there had been agreement to proceed along the lines just discussed.
We, for our part, are prepared to proceed now with Bill C-69.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



Monique Vézina: that Bill C-69, an act to amend the Criminal Code (air and maritime safety), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 1989 Canada signed three international anti-terrorism agreements dealing with air and maritime safety. We now wish to formally ratify these agreements.
Accordingly it is necessary to amend the Criminal Code. These are the proposed amendments you will find in Bill C-69.
You will recall that in 1985 several terrorist attacks were directed against international civil aviation and maritime shipping targets. These attacks involve the indiscriminate killing of innocent travellers. They also show that regardless of how sophisticated the preventive measures are, unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation and maritime passengers continue to impede the operations of air and maritime services.
This is what constituted the impetus that led to the signature of these agreements.
Canada played a leading role in the development of the three anti-terrorism agreements we intend to ratify.
The first agreement involves the protocol for the suppression of unlawful acts of violence at airports serving international civil aviation. This was developed under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization known as ICAO, not to be confused with ACOA. The second is the convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation. This was developed under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization, IMO. Number three is the protocol for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of fixed platforms located on the continental shelf.
The purpose of these agreements is to extend the prosecute or extradite principle of international law to cover acts of violence at international airports or directed against maritime targets. The prosecute or extradite principle means that when an offender is found in its territory, a state which is a party to the agreement is required to either prosecute the offender or extradite him to another state which has established its jurisdiction over the offender.
The first agreement is a protocol to supplement the 1971 Montreal convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, which Canada ratified in 1972. This protocol resulted from a Canadian proposal made to ICAO and was adopted by 81 nations meeting in Montreal in February 1988.
Its adoption reflects a legitimate interest on the part of the international civil aviation community, not only in the security of aircraft in-flight services, which are covered under the existing Montreal convention of 1971 but also in the security of passengers, personnel, aircraft, operating facilities and services at international airports.
The focus of the second and third agreements, the international maritime organization convention and protocol, is terrorism which might take place on ships, at sea, or aboard platforms located on the continental shelf.
Included in the preamble to the convention is a statement of deep concern about acts of terrorism "in all its forms which endanger or take innocent lives, jeopardize fundamental freedoms and seriously impair the dignity of human beings". The government shares that concern.
Like the ICAO protocol, the international maritime organization convention protocols are wide in their scope. They contain broad definitions of ship and fixed
May 5, 1992

platform, which are designed to allow as many types of ships and platforms as possible to be covered.
These measures are intended to extend the principles and mechanisms found in previous anti-terrorism instruments to new situations and represent a further consolidation of these principles.
In addition to the convention and protocol, the international maritime organization adopted guidelines for measures to prevent acts of terrorism at marine terminals and on board ships. These are being implemented on a voluntary basis by port and ship operators in Canada with technical assistance provided by Transport Canada. A strong international consensus in support of these three agreements suggests a general recognition that no state is immune from the threat of terrorist violence.
The ratification of these three international agreements and their implementation will signal that Canada continues to play a leading role in the world-wide fight against terrorism. In order to ratify these agreements we need to amend the Criminal Code in order to extend the jurisdiction of Canadian courts and add new offences. This is what Bill C-69 does.
An essential part of the fight against terrorism is the creation of global jurisdictional networks to ensure that terrorists do not go wherever they may flee. These instruments will help to fill the jurisdictional gaps, which have allowed terrorists to escape justice in the past. The legislation before us today will go a long way in extending the jurisdiction of Canadian courts to help fill the present gap.
Traditionally, the application of Canada's domestic criminal law has been limited to matters occurring within Canada's borders. This is consistent with the territorial principle of jurisdiction derived from the English common law.
Western European countries have generally taken a much broader view and adopted the nationality principle which gives states jurisdiction to control the conduct of their own nationals whether at home or abroad. Jurisdiction can be concurrent with another state or states. In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, each state concerned may have a legitimate basis for jurisdiction over the offence. In practical terms, however, the state with the
Government Orders
greatest interest that has custody of the alleged offender would likely see its own jurisdiction prevail first.
The International Civil Aviation Organization protocol, in addition to recognizing territorial jurisdiction provides a state party with universal jurisdiction when the alleged offender is present in its territory and chooses not to extradite that person.
The International Maritime Organization convention in protocol provides for similar territorial and universal jurisdiction and goes further by allowing signatory states the option of establishing their jurisdiction based on the principles of active and passive nationality.
Notwithstanding its traditional approach to the matter of jurisdiction, Canada has accepted the notion that in order to curtail modem international terrorism, which knows no borders, the active assertion of jurisdiction through a series of multilateral agreements is appropriate. The present instruments follow other anti-terrorism instruments to which Canada is a party.
The application of these earlier agreements necessitated amendments to the Criminal Code to include provisions that would allow Canada to assert extra territorial jurisdiction in several instances. In addition to the extension of Canadian jurisdiction, the present amendments will add new offences to the Criminal Code as a result of these agreements. Essentially the new provisions will address acts of violence against persons, acts involving the destruction of property, attempts to commit such offences, and complicity in the commission of such offences.
The acts encompassed by these agreements are those which endanger or are likely to endanger safety, specifically at an airport serving international civil aviation, a safe navigation of a ship, or the safety of a fixed platform attached to the sea bed on the Continental Shelf.
In order to facilitate the investigation of these offences, the government proposes to include them within the list of offences prescribed in Part VI of the Criminal Code for which courts may authorize the interception of private communications or wiretaps.
Finally, these international agreements may serve as the legal basis for extradition where no extradition treaty exists. That would be particularly useful for Canada

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
because there are countries in the world that have no extradition treaties in existence.
The goal of both the ICAO protocol and the IMO convention and protocol is to create a more effective system of international co-operation in an effort to diminish the intensity of the terrorist threat. Since Canada played a leading role in the development of these three instruments it is appropriate that we move quickly to ratify them and amend our domestic legislation. This legislation would also complement the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act which extends Canadian criminal jurisdiction to marine installations on the continental shelf and to foreign fishing vessels exploiting the Canadian fishing zones.
The agreements will make it more difficult than it is now for a person suspected of committing acts of violence directed against international airports or maritime shipping to escape prosecution by requiring states which are party to them to prosecute or extradite such persons. They will also confer extra-territorial jurisdiction over these acts on these states. The agreements will eliminate safe havens and ensure that perpetrators of such acts cannot escape punishment by fleeing the country in which the act was committed.
This initiative is consistent with Canada's current international commitments against terrorism. It will contribute to the enhancement of public safety in transportation and provide an opportunity for Canada to support the international community's stand against terrorism.
The legislation is a reasonable and responsible measure that will contribute significantly to the safety of Canadians who travel, either for pleasure or for work, and for those Canadians working on offshore platforms.
The member for Port Moody-Coquitlam said to bring us legislation in the Criminal Code that is not in response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. As you can see, three minutes later there is another amendment to the Criminal Code that responds to Canada's legitimate concerns about terrorism throughout the world. Canada has been at the forefront of this initiative. I can tell the hon. member if it is justice legislation that he likes to see, he should be very happy throughout this session. I would suggest that other than possibly the
Department of Finance, I do not know of any government department that has come forward with more good legislation to protect Canadians at home and abroad. I know this piece of legislation, like all the others, should put a smile on his face. I look forward to having this legislation, as well as three other justice department pieces of legislation in the committee. I believe this is good law, like all the initiatives that have been taken by this present Minister of Justice and her predecessors. This is the kind of law our constituents want us to pass.
I think it is a responsible move by the members of this House to move this bill into the committee stage so we can have a look at it and pass it. This will protect not only Canadians at home, but those individuals who work or travel abroad. They will be pleased the House has acted in a responsible manner by taking the lead in this international initiative and coming before Parliament with this particular legislation.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I would like to respond to the statement by the hon. parliamentary secretary with respect to Bill C-69, which is another piece of legislation that involves amending the Criminal Code.
This one amends the Criminal Code to enable Canada to implement three international anti-terrorism agreements developed under the auspices of the International Civic Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization.
The parliamentary secretary said Canada is at the forefront of the work on the three very important international agreements he has outlined. I do agree with him on that. However, if Canada is to be at the forefront, he is not exactly rushing this piece of legislation into the House of Commons. Terrorism has been here for quite a number of years, and certainly this piece of legislation could have been brought before the House before now. I agree on the importance of the legislation to implement these agreements and for Canada to do its part in ensuring that there is no safe haven for terrorists and that we do have the auspices in which to have extradition, as the hon. member outlined.
We are fortunate in this country that we did not have occasion to need this legislation before now. The government has taken its jolly good time in bringing forward
May 5, 1992

this legislation and this amendment to the Criminal Code.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned that this is a time when there is a lot of legislation from the Department of Justice before the House of Commons and before a committee. I would suggest to him that if we are going to amend the Criminal Code one section at a time with a piece of legislation for each section, certainly we will have a lot of legislation. That does not mean that we are making progress.
The Criminal Code has over 800 sections. I would like to see something from the government, even in a mini-omnibus bill, which took perhaps two different thoughts and put them into a bill so we could have something that we could really sink our teeth into instead of this constant catch-up that we are playing.
As I mentioned earlier this morning when dealing with Bill C-70, we are not catching up. We are dealing with Bills C-70 and C-69, two very important pieces of legislation that must be implemented, but based on very narrow premises. We are dealing with one in Bill C-70 that was required as absolutely being compulsory to pass before the six-month time period imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This bill of course deals with three international agreements with respect to marine and aviation concerns which Canada has to implement. They are good pieces of work, frankly, international agreements which the parliamentary secretary stated have been agreed to and worked upon by Canada in conjunction with other countries and certainly should have been brought before the House before now.
The government was not waiting for another piece of legislation. It was not waiting for a new thought before bringing this legislation forward because it is bare bones as to what is needed to inject these three international agreements into our Criminal Code so that we in Canada can have the protection of the international agreements and offer protection to nationals of other countries by being part of this network.
The parliamentary secretary said that this is a piece of legislation that is not ordered by the courts. As I mentioned, in Bill C-70 it is not only the court's decree that is pushing this government, it is public opinion. Certainly terrorism is not a new concept. Public opinion would be very much behind the bringing forward of this
Government Orders
legislation to put these three international agreements in the Criminal Code.
We have two bills this morning that are very much acceptable to everyone. However, there the matter stops. Anything that requires any new conceptual thinking, any planning for the future, anything in dealing with where we are going rather than where we have been and are still going, this government is not prepared to deal with it.
I criticized this government previously on Bill C-12, the Young Offenders Act, because it was only a part of what needed to be done; once again, reacting to the belief of the people that if you punish young offenders more severely, if you try them in adult courts and put them in adult institutions, you are going to safeguard the public. The government was not dealing with the fact that these young offenders are going to come out from those adult institutions, having been psychologically and physically assaulted, without rehabilitation or counselling, are going to be back in our society and are going to be repeat offenders as a result of the experience they have been through. The fact is that is not protecting society. That may be an act of retribution. It may be dealing with punishing those offenders and that for a while may be some comfort to people in society. Certainly it is a requirement for those who have suffered as a result of the offence. There is no question that that has to be part of it, but there is more. We have an integrated society that must deal with the ramifications of what we do.
We saw in Toronto in the last couple of days where the subsidized housing requirements have not been met, where there has been discrimination of visible minorities when they apply for jobs exists, where the integration and working together of federal, provincial and municipal police forces has not been met, where we need to pool the ideas and thinking of federal, provincial and municipal agencies in dealing with urban crime and the needs of society, of young people and the disadvantaged in our society. That is the problem. There are vital areas in our society where the concerns have not been met.
I received a letter from the minister on this question, that Bill C-12 did not deal with the most important aspects of the young offenders bill which really had to be brought forward. She assured me there would be a second part to the Young Offenders Act that would be

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
brought forward by December 1991. This is May and we still do not have it. This very important question is not being dealt with.
The member for Port Moody-Coquitlam had a very important question on the Human Rights Act. The Prime Minister stood in this House a week ago yesterday and condemned the RCMP for the prosecution of gays in this country in the 1960s and stated how his government was above that and how he protected the human rights of Canadians. He felt that that action by the RCMP and the thought at that time was just terrible.
Yet, as the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam said, the Human Rights Act goes unamended. The Human Rights Act, which does not protect sexual orientation from being an abuse and prejudice, is absolutely glaring. What is going to be done?
If we are concerned about having sexual orientation as a means of dealing with a very important question, an open society, then we cannot have sexual orientation as a means of discrimination in this country. It is axiomatic that we cannot be a country of modern 20th century technology, a country that is going into the 21st century, with ideas and laws that relate to the 19th century.
If we are going to have the society that we in Canada feel we must have, that the government mistakenly feels that it does have, we need these fundamental changes to our laws in this country. We must not fear as politicians, and I particularly say this to the government, any advice that will come forward that is contrary to the thinking of the government. It is not an act of sedition and it is something to deal with by cancelling and disbanding the organizations that give that advice as the government is doing with the Science Council of Canada, the Economic Council of Canada and particularly in the legal field with the Law Reform Commission of Canada. These organizations have given advice on changes that needed to be brought forward. The member for Port Moody-Coquitlam said earlier in dealing with the Swain case and the insanity provisions, and with the contraventions bill that is now in committee, that they have been very helpful. The government has taken its own sweet time in bringing these recommendations before the House in legislation.
However, that is not the fault of the Law Reform Commission. It cannot be blamed for bringing forward concepts that the government took years and years to comprehend.
Finally, through some kind of head banging against the wall, the government has realized that some of these principles are now applicable and now contemporary, although society may have moved on to other things which are being debated that the government has not yet caught up with. It has caught up with some of these ideas that the Law Reform Commission brought forward in the mid-1970s and that is laudatory.
The fact is that there are new ideas that need to be developed and discussed and we need the Law Reform Commission to deal with those for the future. Of course, the government has chosen not to allow the Law Reform Commission to continue its work.
With respect to this legislation, I would like to assure the parliamentary secretary that this party will ensure that the bill passes quickly today on second reading. This bill will be dealt with expeditiously in committee and hopefully, if the government's timetable will allow it, we can have this bill passed through the House of Commons very, very quickly indeed.
It is a good piece of legislation, albeit something that could have been brought forward earlier and had a little more associated with it to allow for more discussion on other subjects when we are taking the time of the House to deal with amendments to the Criminal Code. This in itself is important and we acknowledge that and support it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to speak again on this bill, another justice bill.
The parliamentary secretary produced this bill out of his hat in response to our demand. He said this was the world-wide fight against terrorism. I looked in the bill and I cannot find the word terrorism anywhere in it.
That is fraud to say that. This bill creates new offences in the code, it is true, which deal with unlawful acts of violence directed at airports, maritime shipping, plat-
May 5, 1992

forms, such as oil rigs. The bill also extends the jurisdiction to the Canadian courts on these offences.
These are relatively minor amendments and they extend the prosecute or extradite principle of international law in the Criminal Code. They are not, as the government has trumpeted, new measures to curb violent acts of international terrorism.
I just want to take a couple of minutes to tell the government how it can deal with international terrorism. I have a suggestion. My suggestion is that the government support the United Nations International Criminal Court. That is the key to the future and to attack real acts of international terrorism.
Let me give an example of the problem. We now have a United Nations resolution demanding that Libya extradite to the United States or to Britain two Libyans accused of blowing up Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 over Lockerbee, Scotland. Libya has refused to do that, saying: "National sovereignty-We are not going to extradite them".
Now the U.S. and Britain have persuaded the Security Council to invoke economic sanctions against Libya. We have a very serious international situation that is in the pot now because of this.
It seems to me that this is a perfect case where we could use a world criminal court. The President of Venezuela and the Loreign Minister of Zimbabwe advanced this proposal at the UN Security Council last year and the former German Loreign Minister, Hans-Die-trich Genscher, has more recently made the same proposal.
Libya made noises about turning over the suspects to a neutral court in any neutral country. The Russian foreign minister then called upon the United Nations to take these two Libyans.
What would the United Nations do with them? The King of Morocco, in advocating the creation of an international tribunal against terrorism, summed up the legal situation pretty fairly. I want to quote what he said: "If the accused were judged in Libya, that would not be credible. If they were judged by an American or English court that too might not seem credible".
Government Orders
In other words, if Khadafy put the two alleged terrorists on trial we would not believe it would be a fair trial. However, from the Libyans' point of view, if they were sent to a court in Britain, the United States or Prance, they probably would not think they would get a fair trial. In their mind one can understand that. The answer is to turn them over to an international criminal court.
There are other modem incidents which call for an international solution. Part of this bill responds to one of those incidents and that is the Achilles Lauro case. It was the boat that was hijacked in the Mediterranean. It was a terrible case where a man in a wheelchair was thrown overboard. The bill addresses aircraft hijackings and violence like events we have see at the Rome airport.
The problem with offences like this is that they take place in or over a number of states. There is a problem with extraditing people. The principle of the bill we are debating deals with a principle called prosecutor extradite. The parliamentary secretary mentioned if we wanted to stop people from going to another country or bring them back.
Sometimes countries have trouble extraditing people. Colombia is a perfect example. It has political problems at home to extradite accused drug lords to the United States, because the public says: "Wait a minute. Don't send them to big Uncle Sam up there". It has a problem. However it would be prepared to send these people to a more neutral international court.
Let us look at Saddam Hussein who is called an international war criminal by the United States. It seems to me, whatever the United States called him, he is certainly accountable to the world over the environmental aspects of what happened in the gulf with respect to the gulf war and the Kuwaiti oil wells, setting them on fire.
There is room. One could say that was an act of international terrorism against the environment. Where do we try it? We would try it in an international court. The idea of a world criminal court is not a new one. It surfaced in Versailles after the First World War. It was seriously debated in the 1950s after Nuremberg and Tokyo and the war crimes. Then it disappeared in the cold war. It got lost then.

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
International crime did not get lost. It expanded as the parliamentary secretary pointed out: terrorism, drug trafficking, genocide, environmental crimes. UN lawyers called them crimes against the peace and security of mankind. The International Law Commission, a branch of the UN, has gone so far as to draft a model statute for a new criminal court. It drafted a new model international code like our Criminal Code, only on the international scene, to list international crimes.
The world's leading expert in this area is Professor Cherif Bassiouni of Chicago. There is a woman professor in Canada, Professor Sharon Williams at Osgoode Hall who is very knowledgeable in this area. Professor Bassiouni said there was a broad consensus in the world. There are 22 crimes and a number of international conventions and treaties which include these crimes from the convention on slavery through drug conventions, to genocide conventions, through using explosives in the mails, crimes against diplomats and airline hijackings. These specific treaties were mentioned by the government today. The professor said that the international court was a practical and realizable project and all that was lacking was the political will.
This court is different from the World Court of Justice. This is a court that tries individuals, the international criminal court.
Where is Canada? The parliamentary secretary said that Canada is at the forefront of the world. That is nonsense.
I asked our former ambassador to the UN. He openly admitted that he had heard of the debate, but he was not quite sure about the international court. He certainly did not get any instructions on a criminal court.
I asked the Department of External Affairs and ironically it was too preoccupied by the Libyan situation to consider the matter fully, which is exactly the situation that calls out for an international criminal court.
Let me say to the government: Here is a good issue for Canada. Here is something that it really can do if it wants to tackle international terrorism. It can go to the sixth committee of the UN this fall. Canada should take the lead in advocating the establishment of an international criminal court.
The world has changed. Frontiers are smaller. The world is smaller. There can be no real world democracy,
no real freedom without an international rule of law. That which harms democracy and human rights as do all international criminal acts harms peace.
The time, it seems to me, has come for an international criminal court. It is an idea whose time has come. It is a way that the government could really, if it wants to be serious, fight the world-wide fight against terrorism and really put Canada in the forefront of the world, as the parliamentary secretary said. That is what Canada should do.
This bill is fine. It is a minor bill. It is okay if we can find the people in Canada, but if they flee to another jurisdiction we have to ask to extradite them; we have to have an extradition treaty with the country. If it will not extradite them like Libya, what will we do? Are we to go to the UN Security Council and have a war?
There is another solution and that is an international criminal court. I ask the government to look at that. For my party, we are prepared to pass this bill today because as I said it is not a major bill. If it is helpful to protect Canadians on oil rigs, boats and in airports then we want to take any steps that will be helpful in that area.
There is a bigger target and there is a bigger cause. I know the parliamentary secretary is a reasonable person. I would enlist his support and the support of my colleague from the Liberal Party for that cause, that is a world-wide international criminal court to tackle terrorism, an idea, surely, whose time has come.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a short intervention on Bill C-69, an act to amend the Criminal Code (air and maritime safety).
As my colleague has already stated we support the bill, but I want to say that if the government were serious about improving the safety of people travelling on airlines that leave airports in Canada there is a number of other things it could do. I am not talking about the maintenance side. That is another matter for another day. I am talking about the ability of this government to provide for the screening of passengers and the screening of crews as they board our planes.
Mr. Speaker, as you and the House know, for a number of years now the Government of Canada has turned over the responsibility to the screening of passengers to the airlines. In some airports Air Canada provides that service. In other airports Canadian Airlines
May 5, 1992

provides that service. In turn those airlines contract security firms to provide the personnel and the equipment we see as passengers as we enter the secured area of an airport.
We know from press reports this week that there is not 100 per cent detection of weapons or explosives being transferred or carried into airplanes. The inspectors on a regular basis attempt to beat the system and they do. They are able to smuggle illegal weapons or explosives past security. It is not picked up in the x-rays. It is not picked up in the wand check. It is not picked up in any of the carry on baggage screening that is done. I do not fault the personnel that have been hired by the security companies, but when we recognize the kind of wages paid for this work we have to recognize that we are not putting our money where our mouths have been.
These people should not be contract employees of a security company employed by an airline under instructions from the Government of Canada. If this government were serious about ensuring the safety of people who travel on airplanes, those would be permanent Government of Canada employees who greet us at the security entrances to the lounges at our airports. Permanent personnel have the ability to add experience after experience after experience. They can become expert in spotting illegal activity and they can become expert in identifying shapes seen on the x-ray machine.
I have been amazed the times I have gone through security screening in Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, and Halifax by the number of objects that are not even queried. Batteries go through the x-ray and nobody says a word. Canisters that contain a soft drink go through, but that could easily carry something more deadly.
When contract personnel are used at low rates of pay-and we are talking $5, $6, $7 an hour-the chances are that those people will go off to other work because they cannot raise families on $6.50 an hour these days. In some provinces that is no longer minimum wage. Yet it is the level of pay being offered by contractors who have won the bid because of their lower tender and have perhaps put 50 or 60 existing workers out on the street and replaced them with a bunch of new trainees, new
Government Orders
people. We are just not putting the proper value on the lives of people who fly in our airplanes.
If the government really wants to be serious about aviation security, about ensuring that things can do damage to people or planes are not brought through security, then one of the best ways is to invest in permanent personnel who will provide that screening. It should not allow a privatized form of service to be provided or a revolving door kind of service. It should provide permanent employees of the Government of Canada with the training and expertise needed to ensure that airlines are safe.
As I said at the beginning we will support this bill, but let us be realistic. The government can do a lot more to ensure that our airlines are safe.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.

Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-71, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open the debate today on Bill C-71, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act.
The government has recognized the need to reform this law in order to make the system for granting pardons more efficient and to reduce delays and costs.

May 5, 1992
Government Orders

Our goal was to find a way to reform the system without disrupting the basic objectives. These include providing fair and timely service to eligible ex-offenders, creating a more efficient criminal record system and most important, ensuring public safety.
The present pardon system is under pressure because of rising numbers of applications and delays caused by a very cumbersome review, investigation and decisionmaking process. As a result there are backlogs, rising costs and delays in processing pardons for eligible offenders.


An hon. member:: Because of cutbacks.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No, it is not because of any cutbacks.
As Solicitor General, I have endeavoured on several occasions to assist colleagues from all sides of the House to process what seems to all of us to be very insignificant pardon applications as quickly as possible so that people can get jobs and carry on with their lives long after infractions of the law have been dealt with. I have endeavoured wherever possible to assist my colleagues. The best way I can assist my colleagues is by straightening out this law. That is what we want to do.
The primary aim of a pardon is to remove as much as possible the negative consequences of having a criminal record after an appropriate period of time. In effect, it is designed to give ex-offenders a fresh start and have an opportunity to reintegrate into society. However, we recognize that a pardon should only be granted after offenders have served their sentences and enough time has elapsed to establish that with some degree of certainty they have in fact become law-abiding citizens.
The Criminal Records Act is not new legislation. In 1969 the Ouimet committee recognized the need for legislation that would ease the legal disabilities and social stigma of a criminal record. This was necessary to help ex-offenders who had demonstrated over an appropriate number of years that they could lead lives which were crime free. The committee's recommendations were largely responsible for the enactment of the original Criminal Records Act in 1970.
The Criminal Records Act formally recognizes that an individual who has satisfied the sentence imposed by the
courts and has gone on to become a responsible citizen should be granted a pardon.
A pardon granted through the Criminal Records Act removes the social and legal consequences of a conviction and symbolizes that an individual has successfully rejoined society.
However, it became clear as early as 1980 that there were deficiencies in the pardon system. Aside from a very cumbersome review process, which I have already referred to, law enforcement officers were unhappy with the complicated system of having to apply for access to sealed criminal records of pardoned offenders.
A revised structure for granting pardons was proposed in the form of a records management approach which would have operated in a manner similar to the highway demerit point system. With the passage of specified crime-free periods the ex-offenders' criminal records would have been gradually sealed and in time all records would have been sealed, therefore, preventing any disclosure of a criminal past.
This was a graduated approach which was a marked change from the more traditional concept of pardons where the Crown would grant a pardon based on exceptional circumstances existing in individual cases.
That type of pardon was a one-time exercise of mercy. It was felt that if we shifted away from this traditional concept of a pardon it would be more in keeping with the true intention of the Criminal Records Act which was designed to help as many eligible offenders as possible, not just one.
Another potential benefit of this approach was that administrative and investigative costs could have been cut without jeopardizing public safety.
Further legal changes were proposed in 1988 to deal in a limited way with specific abuses or issues relating to substance abuse.
The government has reviewed all of the various options for reform. We have also had the benefit of the work done by my colleague, the member for Mississauga South, who proposed and debated private member's Bill C-238, which touches on these issues.
May 5, 1992

We have consulted widely with affected organizations such as police groups, victims groups, offender assistance agencies and we have discussed the proposals which are before the House today with provincial government representatives.
We also had the assistance of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General. The amendments I am proposing today will respond to many of the needs and concerns which were identified during these consultations, especially the need to ensure the safety and security of the Canadian public.
In this regard I am sure that we are all aware that just this morning the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General reported back to the House with the amended Bill C-36 which proposes wide-ranging reforms of corrections and parole. We have had considerable assistance from all members of the House in getting that through committee stage rapidly. I am very optimistic that we will have an opportunity this week to send it to the Senate.


Mr. Milliken:: This week?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We have had the complete co-operation of my hon. friends and I know that they understand the public demands that are out there to move on this. However, if my hon. friends want to further delay reforms-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It's not delay; it's debate.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -which very much favour the rights of victims, I would regret that, but we are prepared to debate it and I would hope that common sense will prevail.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: What pious nonsense.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: An underlying principle of this bill however is the need to better distinguish between minor and serious offenders which includes the corresponding need to concentrate our resources on the most serious cases while preserving public protection.
A similar principle is going to apply to the Criminal Records Act. While these amendments would result in a less cumbersome system for all ex-offenders, there is a recognition that more serious offenders should wait a longer period before being pardoned.
Bill C-71 will give the National Parole Board authority under the Criminal Records Act to grant all pardons for all indictable offences. It will also give the National Parole Board authority to issue pardons for lesser offences, that is summary convictions as well. This will
Government Orders
relieve the necessity for a special committee of cabinet to review all pardons and will make the process much more efficient.
The bill proposes that the RCMP purge all discharges from the criminal record and therefore remove them entirely from the pardon process. This will take place after one year for absolute discharges and after three years for conditional discharges. These time intervals will allow the court access to relevant information should the offender continue to contravene the law in the interim.
This provision has long been suggested as a more equitable way to deal with discharges than the current system of an application for pardon when in fact the person has never really been convicted of any offence.
In keeping with the objectives of Bill C-36, we are also proposing the retention of five years of conviction-free good conduct as the criteria for a pardon for serious or indictable offences.
The government is also proposing to increase the waiting period from two to three years for less serious summary offences. However, ex-offenders in this category will not be subject to community investigations to check into what is referred to as "good conduct". At present eligibility for all pardons requires this type of determination. This is a burdensome process which is not always warranted particularly for the less serious offences.
Under this new amendment as long as ex-offenders live in the community with no new convictions during the waiting period, upon application a pardon will be granted and their records will be sealed. This will cut back on the time and money currently spent on investigation and review. It will also streamline the pardon-granting process for this categoiy of ex-offender.
I would like to emphasize that in neither case will the safety of the public be jeopardized. We will be developing additional guidelines identifying offences which will normally be the focus of an extensive investigation of good conduct before a decision is made to grant or deny a pardon. This group of offences would include offences causing personal harm, violence, sexual offences and serious drug offences.
By this approach, the government will be fulfilling its responsibilities for protection of the public. We believe very strongly the purpose of the Criminal Records Act should be to protect the privacy of those ex-offenders who have proven by their actions that they can lead crime-free lives in the community.

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
Conversely, the government also believes that the act must never be used as a shield to protect any pardoned offender who is convicted of a new serious crime. For this reason, the bill will allow for the automatic revocation of pardons for offenders who commit further indictable offences. This will ensure easier court access to records for the purpose of sentencing repeat offenders.
The police, as we heard during the consultations that preceded the drafting of the bill, also need better access to the sealed records of pardoned offenders to help with their investigations.
The government has addressed this concern by including a provision to expand police access to identification information which is contained in the sealed records of pardoned offenders, for example, to help police identify fingerprints found at the scene of a crime.
Police requests for the disclosure of pardoned records on occasion have run into procedural delays which have lead to a prolonged investigation and a waste of police resources. In the interests of public safety, we have to ensure this does not happen in the future.
The act will stipulate that certain types of prohibitions or disqualifications such as a ban on owning firearms or disqualification from driving will not be lifted despite the granting of the pardon.
I believe it is imperative that if the courts have determined in the interests of public safety a person should not be allowed to drive a car for a certain period of time or to own a firearm then this prohibition has to remain in effect, regardless of the granting of a pardon for other offences and other purposes.

We propose to concentrate the measures for the investigation and decision-making process on the most serious cases. On the other hand, ex-offenders who are less of a risk to the public will be subject to a less exhaustive process.
Here again public safety is the most important consideration for us. This reform proposal takes a reasonable and balanced approach to issues of criminal justice. It is an approach that the public has been demanding and that my department and the government are committed to.

Finally in conclusion I move:
That Bill C-71, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and
other acts in consequence thereof, be referred to the Standing
Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not as familiar with the rules as I once was when I was House leader. Some in the Chamber might suggest I was never familiar with them. I believe the process now is to have somebody from the opposition second the motion to send this to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General's Affairs rather than two members from the government side.
That is why I specifically referred to the member for Scarborough West in my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: If an opposition member wishes to second the minister's motion, there is no problem.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I have never been House leader, therefore I have even less experience with the rules than the hon. minister. However, from the Liberal point of view, the logical place for this bill to be examined is at the committee for Justice and the Solicitor General. Of course we would support that motion. In fact we wanted to make sure that occurred, since a reasonable degree of expertise has been developed in that particular committee.

It really does not matter to me who seconds the bill. The fact that it goes to the Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General is most important. If necessary I am prepared to second it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Am I right in saying that the House unanimously supports the Solicitor General's motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Solicitor General of Canada in his opening remarks. I want to make it clear the motion I am seconding is the referral of this bill to the Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
We think it is important that we have an opportunity to discuss the principles this particular bill espouses.
I would just like to run through those principles and also discuss from my perspective a little bit of the history of this situation.
The proposed amendments to the Criminal Records Act as set out in Bill C-71 are stated to be structured to create a more effective pardons system; to improve service to increasing numbers of eligible ex-offenders; to achieve cost savings and reduce delays in the granting of pardons, and to address anomalies in the current act.
I think it is fair to say that most Canadians are in favour of a system permitting pardons. Most Canadians are in favour of a system that recognizes people do make mistakes and are entitled to get on with their lives after they have paid the appropriate price society has exacted for making those mistakes.
The Criminal Records Act has been around for quite some time as we heard from the hon. minister. There has been some agitation to amend the Criminal Records Act for some time, as well, particularly as it relates to those offences where there is a finding of guilt but no conviction for the purposes of the Criminal Code, and the punishment was an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge.
Government Orders
That was not the only problem with the Criminal Records Act but it was a major problem that had developed over the years.
The hon. member for Mississauga South, among many members, saw there was a problem and was lucky enough to have his private members' bill drawn from the hopper as it were, to be able to debate that bill.
That occurred on October 9, 1991. By sheer coincidence, I just happened to be in the House then. I made some remarks about what the hon. members' bill said, and pointed out what I considered to be potential anomalies. At that time, the hon. member for Crowfoot moved that the hon. member for Mississauga South withdraw his bill, and the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General for study and recommendation to Parliament. That of course occurred. Again I repeat, it was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General. Therein lies the thread of consistency to bring this bill to the Committee of Justice and the Solicitor General.
After that occurred presumably the wheels of government began to move. Someone began to look at the Criminal Records Act very seriously and decided that if the House said we had better look at this subject matter very seriously, perhaps the government should look at it very seriously.
I am assuming that, because there was no agitation with respect to the Criminal Records Act until after the hon. member had an opportunity to debate his bill in the House and the House made that unanimous recommendation.
It is time the Criminal Records Act was amended. There are a number of difficulties with it and this bill proposes to deal with quite a few of them. I would like to discuss in a general way some of the things the bill is going to do, and point out it is going to be very important for us in committee to examine this bill, short as it may be. It will have great ramifications on those people to whom pardons have been granted, to the types of jobs they are able to apply for, and the types of questions that may or may not be on application forms for employment. At the same time, it is going to affect the safety of the community at large.

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
The bill will give authority under the Criminal Records Act to grant pardons to the National Parole Board. Right now it is extremely cumbersome because a special committee of cabinet grants these pardons presumably on the recommendation of the appropriate officials. This has bogged the system down terribly so that people who have applications for pardon are waiting an inordinate length of time beyond the time within which they are entitled to a pardon under the act. It is a veiy good proposal to give the job to the National Parole Board and take it out of the Special Committee of the Cabinet.
The second principle will be to purge, and I use the word advisedly because it is used in the headings of the bill, all discharges from the record. Absolute discharges will be purged after one year and conditional discharges after three years. Therefore they will be removed entirely from the pardons process. This is found in section 6 of the bill. In terms of the purge, we talked about removing discharges from the automated criminal convictions records retrieval system maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is it.
The records are going to be removed from that system of the RCMP. We have a little difficulty here because we are really talking about federal legislation impacting on federal agencies. The RCMP is under the direction of the Solicitor General of Canada and this is a perfectly sensible section. However, there will be all sorts of information out there in the public record about absolute and conditional discharges that have been purged from the RCMP retrieval systems. There will be newspaper articles, other information such as notes in files and even the recollections of people as to what offences were committed, as one official said earlier when we were being briefed.
I think the bill will attempt to address that by limiting the uses to which this information can be put. The minister always has the discretion, in an appropriate case, to permit the use of the information.
That was one of the problems I had back in October 1991 when I pointed out that a person may be given an absolute discharge for a particular offence. One of the criteria for an absolute discharge is that the person is a first offender.
If the sentencing court does not know that person has received an absolute discharge before, it automatically
assumes he is a first offender even though he may have received an absolute discharge two, three, four times before for similar or different offences.
I do not know how that is going to be dealt with in the bill, other than within this discretionary application to the minister. That is one of the reasons why we have to study the bill carefully when it gets to the committee. However, I think that section is an attempt to deal with that potential anomaly, while at the same time ensuring the information is not generally available and not required to be disclosed after a specific period of time when it comes to discharges.
It retains five years of conviction-free good conduct as the criteria for pardon for serious offences. We have a problem with the definition of "serious offences". If you ask 295 members of this House of Commons what a serious offence is, you may very well get 295 different answers. What is a serious offence to one may not be quite as serious to another.
There may be a difficulty with respect to what serious offence means, and what is or is not a serious offence. We also have a technical problem with hybrid offences in the Criminal Code, or offences that can be proceeded with by way of summary conviction or indictment.
As I understand it-this remains to be seen-if a so-called serious offence is proceeded with by summary conviction as opposed to indictment, it suddenly becomes a non-serious offence. For example, it may be a hybrid offence if a person is charged with sexually assaulting an 11-year old girl.
Then it is up to the Crown to decide which way to proceed. If the Crown chooses to proceed by summary conviction, then I believe this bill will deem that to be a less serious offence for the purposes of the Criminal Records Act. That could very well be a problem.
It will increase the conviction-free period from two to three years for less serious offences, whatever that means. We will have to study that.
A community investigation of good conduct might be carried out. Of course it is permissive. It is not required. The Parole Board might carry out an investigation of what good conduct is. Will this end up simply being a rubber stamp? Will there be a mechanism to determine whether or not the person applying was in fact of good conduct for the last five years? That question has to be asked.

The bill will, apparently, automatically revoke pardons for offenders who commit further indictable offences. In other words, if you have received a pardon because society has forgiven you and then you go out and commit another indictable offence and are convicted of it, your pardon is revoked.
What about hybrid offences? What about an indictable offence that is treated as a summary conviction offence for the purposes of the Criminal Code and prosecution? Will that occur in this case? That question has to be asked in committee.
The bill will permit an expanded access for police to pardon records for identification purposes for fingerprints at crimes or accident scenes. On the face of it, that seems to be reasonable in helping the police with their investigations. Is it going to be an infringement of the rights of those people who have been pardoned? We will have to look at that very carefully.
It will stipulate in the act certain types of prohibitions or disqualifications, such as a ban on owning firearms or driving that would not be lifted until they expire, despite the granting of a pardon. That means that if someone has been prohibited from driving for 10 years but gets a pardon, presumably that prohibition against driving will not be revoked, even though the person has been pardoned. Is that fair or not? Is it discretionary, or mandatory? We do not know. The minister mentioned peripherally Bill C-36 and his great hopes for that bill. One of the interesting anomalies is that one of the clauses of Bill C-36, clause 109 I believe, gives absolute discretion to the National Parole Board to remove a prohibition against driving any time it wishes, quite apart from whether or not a sentencing court wishes that to be the case.
We have on the one hand this particular act saying; oh, no, just a minute, we do not have to revoke the prohibition against driving even though we give a pardon, and yet another bill in another place permits the National Parole Board, for whatever reasons it sees fit, to overrule whatever a sentencing court did and remove that prohibition against driving, with no appeal to anybody, because the National Parole Board has the final word.
Government Orders
What is the relationship between the Criminal Records Act and its so-called requirement that these prohibitions continue, and Bill C-36 which gives the National Parole Board the absolute jurisdiction to remove these prohibitions? I see some conflict. How is that going to work? Which is going to take precedence?
I would suggest that the permissive section of Bill C-36, which also deals with the National Parole Board, will have precedence or the board will assume that it has precedence under that. That is a potential conflict that we can deal with in committee. The point is that it has to go to committee to deal with these various anomalies that are coming up.
It is important, however, that we do modernize and bring up to date the Criminal Records Act because of the vast numbers of people who are making application. The system has, in fact, bogged down. There is no doubt about that.
The Liberal Party is quite content to have this bill come forward, quite content to have it go to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, and have it studied very, very carefully and then make whatever recommendations the committee may make to Parliament.
Interestingly enough the minister bootlegged a few minutes of his time to talk about Bill C-36 and how he thought it would come before the House. Of course it would be passed lickety-split and there should be no problems. I want to assure the minister that having spent three and a half months of my life working on that bill in the justice and solicitor general committee that we will be taking a very active part in the discussion of Bill C-36 in this House. We in the Liberal Party are as committed as anyone to the protection of society, to the rights of victims, to fairness and equity for inmates and offenders. However, a bill such as Bill C-36 is no mean piece of legislation; it is very complex. We are certainly going to take our time and discuss the bill for the length of time that we think is appropriate to make sure that we do justice to all of the parts of Canada and the peoples of Canada who are affected by that bill. Indeed everybody in Canada either directly or indirectly is affected by that bill.

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
There is some overlap between the principles of Bill C-36 and the Criminal Records Act. I do not think that one necessarily follows the other, and the principles that were enunciated by the minister with respect to the Criminal Records Act stand alone. I do not tie support to the Criminal Records Act or Bill C-71, in whatever form it may be after the committee looks at it, to support for Bill C-36.1 think it is quite consistent to be able to look at both bills separately, although there are some crossstreams.
Having said that we in the Liberal Party are content, as I say, to have the bill referred to the committee, to have it studied carefully, and then to make whatever decision we as a committee believe is appropriate.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to discuss very briefly at second reading Bill C-71, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
The amendments proposed in this rather slim bill are long overdue. My party and I welcome the streamlining proposed within Bill C-71 that will go into effect when the bill is passed in respect of a person attempting to gain a pardon. I think I speak on behalf of virtually every MP in this House who has acted on behalf of a constituent who was seeking a pardon. The system in seeking that pardon seemed inordinately long, inordinately delayed.
Sometimes a constituent would come to me with a record that dated back 10 or 12 years. A person now in his early thirties committed a crime in his mid or late teens and is prevented either from entering the United States of America or more important, prevented from gainful employment or employment of a different kind if he or she wishes to change his or her job.
It seemed to me that the wheels just got stuck, that somewhere in the system the application for pardon was not lost but it was placed somewhere and it simply did not get through. Then of course I think the system placed a considerable burden on some members of cabinet. Very often the ministers of the past perhaps were not quite fast enough, at least in my opinion as an opposition member, in putting their signatures to these pardon applications and making them valid.
Having said all that, I very briefly want to draw members' attention to an anomaly that is in this bill. I am not faulting the government so much. I think it is almost an insurmountable problem. Really what this bill talks about is a record of convictions. It really does not relate to a record of criminality, a criminal record as such.
The hon. member for Scarborough West, who spoke just before me alluded to this in his remarks. When a crime is committed and a person is charged, no matter how heinous that crime may be or how less serious a crime it might be, the police in first instance begin to acquire a dossier on that person. This is a normal, natural procedure. There are all kinds of written notes made by police investigating officers. There are notes made by lawyers. There are articles in newspapers, et cetera. There is a record of that person's alleged criminal behaviour even prior to the trial.
Then of course there are records of the trial itself and there are records of the conviction. If I understand this bill correctly, what we are really dealing with here today is only the record of conviction and only in so far as that record relates to the federal authority, the Solicitor General's office. We are dealing here principally, if not exclusively, with the RCM Police and its computer on records of conviction.
Unless I stand corrected, I do not want the impression to go outside of this Chamber today to the people who are watching it on television or who might read about it in some obscure article in tomorrow's newspapers that for some reason or other even though they were granted a discharge, there will still be a record of their alleged criminality somewhere, some place in the system or criminal justice systems of this country. Whether it is in an archives, a court library or in a police station, it is there.
I do not know how we can expunge that kind of record quite frankly. I do not know how we can order a cop who investigated a crime five years ago to forget about all the details of that investigation. I do not know whether it would even be appropriate if a legislative body such as ours were to order that police department to destroy the dossier or the records.
It is a troubling matter for me. I do not have a criminal record of any kind. I know people who do. When I say a criminal record, the only criminal record I have maybe is having run for Parliament.
May 5, 1992

The point is that there are people who have been investigated, who have been charged, who have been granted an absolute or conditional discharge for a very relatively minor offence but they still have a criminal record. We know they still have a criminal record. I do not know how we go about getting rid of that criminal record.
This bill will purge a computer of a record of criminal convictions. That is all it will do. I think that that is unfortunate but I do not know how we can solve the problem. Hopefully when it goes to committee some of the experts may be able to shed some light on this. Maybe the problem is in fact unsolveable. I do not know.
There are a lot of people in our country today who are very upset that they still have a record of their alleged criminality when in fact in some cases they were given an absolute discharge. I am not a lawyer but I think that means that there was never really a charge in the first place. There should not be any reference to that police investigation when there was an absolute discharge granted to that person. There was in fact no crime committed. I think that is what it means in law. Yet there is still a record somewhere of that arrest, of that person being charged and of that person having to go to court and so on.
If the committee decides that this bill does not go far enough and that we have the constitutional right and power to force police departments, the offices of Crown prosecutors and the various judicial bodies in the country to get rid of all written records where a conditional or an absolute discharge has been granted, that is another matter and that probably should be introduced at the committee stage.
There is one other point that I want to make here and that is criminal records and their relationship with employment opportunities. On job applications the federal government, its agencies and government contractors can only ask if the candidate "has been convicted of an offence for which a pardon has not yet been granted". Any other organization, company or employer can ask whether or not you have a record, period. They do not even have to say criminal record, it is implied.
A young fellow comes in for a job. The prospective employer says: okay, fine, this is fine and that is fine. "Do you have a record?" We all know what he means by that question. If he has been granted a conditional or an absolute discharge, he should be able to say: "No, I do
Government Orders
not have a record". I do not know whether he is telling the truth there or not because there is a record of some criminal behaviour somewhere, notwithstanding the fact that he has been granted either an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge.
Records of convictions for which a pardon was granted are kept separate and apart from the main computer information banks, but the minister can still release some information if he thinks that it is relevant for some jobs. A very good example of this, and I am not arguing against this, is the Solicitor General might inform a kindergarten or a school board that a job applicant has been convicted and pardoned or is a convicted and pardoned child molester if he concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that despite the pardon the individual still poses a threat. I think that part of it is reasonable and acceptable. I think society would support that, I am quite convinced.
On the other hand, as in the examples I used before, I know that there is a lot of frustration out there in the community.
The minister's backgrounder states: "A pardon recognizes that an individual has gone on to become a responsible citizen. A pardon removes the social and legal consequences of a conviction". The above example might be clear-cut, but who is to say that one has not been passed up for a government job or contract because they protested for example a peace demonstration at Goose Bay or were trespassing during the Oka crisis. Ministerial biases and prejudices remain as yet undefined. In other words, we pardon but only to a point. Again, we are all human. I am not singling out any one minister or any one minister of a political party or a particular government, but these things can happen. We are capable of frailty. We are capable of error.
Another point I want to raise at this time has to do with criminal records and international travel. We are very proud to say that we peacefully share a confidence with the world's most powerful nation that there are no guns along the border, no military defence and weaponry along our border which is 5,000 miles long, I have the impression that the world's greatest country, the United States of America, but also the world's most violent country, certainly in the western industrialized world, is aggressively concerned about allowing Canadian citizens into that country who have a criminal record, even though those citizens have probably lived many years

Government Orders
lawfully, in a law-abiding way, causing nobody any problems.
I know that this is a problem and has been for all governments where a person in his teens, an example I mentioned a while ago, commits an indictable offence when he is young, serves his time, comes out, rehabilitates himself, works, achieves a pardon and gets a job as a truck driver. He drives his truck across the border into the United States. He gives his name, ID and so. It is punched up on the computer. Bingo. The pardon is not there, or if it is, it is overlooked, but the criminal record is there.
How many times must a person pay for his crime? This man stands to lose his job in this case. No employer is going to employ a trucker regularly who cannot drive in the United States. How many times must this person pay for his crime?
I know we do not control the American immigration service and we cannot pass laws that are applicable in the United States, but surely while we are discussing this bill the committee should make recommendations that the government try to enter into some kind of international reciprocal agreement with the United States to make certain that every effort is made on its part and on our part that the situation I just mentioned, that the pardon would be sufficient to allow that person to go across the border, whether it is for business or for pleasure.
I have a case right now where a young man in his late twenties, I believe, cannot even visit his parents who have a winter place in Florida. He was convicted. He served his time. He has received a pardon and he still cannot go.
For me, it seems rather ironic. I mentioned a moment ago the United States is a nation that is almost overwhelmed at times with street violence. We saw the example of L.A. It is coming here, unfortunately. I hope we can do something about it. We had riots in Toronto just yesterday. Yet it is so meticulous about keeping out somebody who did his time, paid his debt to society, has been working lawfully for many years, and is still denied access to its country, in this case for business purposes.
I am not going to delay this procedure at second reading. I would hope when the bill goes to committee that some of my concerns and the concerns of the member for Scarborough West will be fully investigated. I want to hear more information from the experts, from the civil servants, or from anybody else who has some input here. I would respectfully submit that this bill, while it certainly is acceptable at this stage, at second reading, needs some fine tuning.
In the spirit in which the minister spoke when he was on his feet a few moments ago with respect to Bill C-36 we have had not a flood, but we have had a series of law bills come before this House in the past several months. We know it is part of a package that the government is presenting. Part of that package is a public relations job, and part of that public relations job is some kind of a message to the people of Canada that this government is going to get tough on criminals. It is going to get tough on crime. It is going to do everything it can to beat the crime problem in this country.
I will be speaking on Bill C-36 later this week but I want to mention here and now that I hope we are not kidding ourselves that by tinkering with legislation, by altering a clause here, by changing a sentence there, by replacing a word somewhere else, that we can somehow honestly argue that these changes will reduce or have a significant impact on the diminishing of crime in our country.
One of the first witnesses to come before us was a representative of one of the police associations in this country, one who gave his expertise to the committee on Bill C-36 but it applies to all of these bills. I asked him if Bill C-36, corrections and conditional releases, goes through will it make our streets safer. His answer was no. One of the last witnesses we heard in Edmonton, another police officer, a rather senior inspector, I put the same question to him and his answer was no.
The first police officer before us, the one I alluded to a moment ago, went on to include in his brief that the major causes of crime in this country were poverty, depravation, lack of education and training, violence in the home, violence in the neighbourhood, cultural depravation, hopelessness and helplessness, mainly among
May 5, 1992

Government Orders



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
the poor with no skills, no jobs, alcoholism, drug abuse and so on.
I know that we cannot put all of these into one neat little bundle and write it up in one nice, neat little bill and pass it and say: "Okay, fine, we are going to embark upon a program to really get at the solution". It is not one bill. It is an attitude that government has to accept, an attitude we on this side of the House have to accept. There are no quick fixes legislatively. We have to begin to change the fundamental environment of our cities and the way we live and our lifestyles. That is when we really begin to tackle crime.
I hope the government will end its series of introducing law bills by announcing a massive public relations campaign. It does not have to be expensive. It should be a public relations campaign, an honest one, a campaign to instil in the minds and hearts of our citizens that crime is a terrible thing. There are all kinds of things we can do ourselves to begin to reduce the crime rate in our towns and cities across this country from coast to coast.
The other side of the coin is what the Americans have been doing for 25 years and it is not working. They have been building more and bigger prisons and putting more people behind bars and executing more murderers. Yet their crime rate is running out of control. If ever we needed an example, a living model of what not to do, we have it to the south of us.
I am not damning them or condemning them. I just hope that they too will get their thinking turned around and really make the effort that is needed to tackle the main and the major causes of crime in their country as I hope we will in ours.
["Mr. Speaker, since there has been unanimous consent of the House to revert to presenting reports from committees, I wish to present the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-53, an act to provide for the imposition of special economic measures.\n[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]"]
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous consent to revert to tabling of reports from committees in order to allow the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville to table the report of Legislative Committee E on Bill C-53.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Members have heard the terms of the request. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, since there has been unanimous consent of the House to revert to presenting reports from committees, I wish to present the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-53, an act to provide for the imposition of special economic measures.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-71, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to take part in the debate at second reading on Bill C-71, which proposes to amend the Criminal Records Act.
First I would like to say that the changes proposed by the government are a direct consequence of a number of serious concerns about the pardon granting process. These concerns were raised by members speaking on behalf of their constituents or as individual members, and by representatives of the penal justice system in general. What are these problems and what is the government's response?
As parliamentarians we have all at times been asked by constituents to accelerate the granting of a pardon. Generally a pardon was sought by a person who had been living in the community for many years as a law abiding

Government Orders
citizen and needed a pardon to get a job or for other personal reasons.
We have all felt the frustration caused by a waiting period of up to a year and a half, even in the most straightforward cases where the applicant obviously deserved a pardon.
We were equally frustrated when we saw that a person who had been discharged by the court and consequently was not convicted of an offence had to apply for a pardon later on to have the reference to the discharge erased from the record.
This anomaly was brought to our attention quite recently by the hon. member for Mississauga South in his private Member's Bill C-238.
Why do the inquiry and decision, in the case of a law-abiding citizen with a minor offence on his record that goes back many years, take just as long as for a person previously convicted of serious crimes of violence? This does not make sense.
Furthermore, why should a person who was never convicted of an offence have to spend time and money to obtain a pardon, when he was granted a discharge by the courts? This does not make sense either, especially since the pardon is invariably granted, but only after a process involving considerable delay and inquiry costs for the government.
The government has responded to these concerns and relevant observations with Bill C-71.
Perhaps I may explain briefly how the legislation will correct these problems.
Because of the present unwieldy process, which in each case involves an inquiry and a decision, there is a substantial backlog of applications which is steadily increasing.
A statistical study of the pardon system has shown that between 1989 and 1990, the number of applications increased by 261 per cent, from 7,100 annually to 25,000.
Meanwhile, the system's processing capacity has remained relatively unchanged. The National Parole Board and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are able to process about 10,000 cases annually.
In the past, before making a recommendation, each applicant was checked for good conduct and whether he
had an indictable offence on his record. Subsequently, the case had to be reviewed by cabinet before a decision could be made.
Consequently, if certain changes are made, we will be able to eliminate the delay caused by cabinet review of all applications, and the Governor in Council will no longer have to review some 10,000 applications annually.
At the present time, a person who has been discharged must submit an application for pardon to make sure his record is sealed, even if he was not convicted of an offence.
Under the present legislation, he can apply for a pardon for a summary conviction one year after being discharged, and after three years for an indictable offence.
After the considerable time required to conduct the inquiry and make a decision, the pardon is invariably granted and the records are sealed.
Subsequently, the records cannot be consulted either by the public or the courts, unless an application is made and disclosure is authorized by the minister.
In the case of a discharge, requests and decisions to unseal the records are very rare, if they occur at all.
The government has decided that records will be automatically sealed either one or three years after the date of discharge, depending on whether it was an absolute or a conditional discharge, thus obviating the need to submit a request or conduct an inquiry.
As a result, about 5,000 applications for pardon will be eliminated every year, which represents about 16 per cent of all pardons currently processed. Resources could then be concentrated on the most serious cases, without jeopardizing public safety.
Some have suggested that this automatic provision apply sooner than the present proposal calls for. The government believes that it is necessary to keep the information on the period in question. The parole can thus be reviewed by the court if the offender immediately commits another offence and continues a life of crime.
The government also examined the case of persons found guilty of a summary offence or one of a less serious nature. Under the present system, a person must have committed no criminal act in the community for a certain period before applying for a pardon. In addition,
May 5, 1992

a community investigation is required to determine the applicant's good conduct.
After the time required to conduct this investigation, the pardon is granted and the basic condition requiring the applicant to have committed no criminal offence and to have received no conviction is considered sufficient for determining his status.
Even though it is unnecessary to conduct in-depth interviews in the community, the delay involved in a discretionary decision complicates the system and delays the process.
The government therefore decided to increase the ineligible period from two to three years for summary offences and to simply require that the applicant was not convicted of any offence in that period to prove that he is law-abiding.
It will no longer be necessary to base the decision on a judgment of good conduct in addition to the condition that the applicant was convicted of no offence during the waiting period.
With this amendment, the government will eliminate 3,500 more applications a year that would be subject to a discretionary decision and will thus speed up the process. Such applications account for about 11 per cent of the cases processed now.
If an ex-offender commits an indictable offence after being pardoned, the pardon will automatically be revoked. If he commits an offence punishable on summary conviction, the minister can open the criminal records for the courts for the purposes of sentencing.
Note that fewer than a hundred applications a year are refused at present. Refusals related to an investigation of good conduct all apply to persons with more serious crimes on their record.
These are the crimes that particularly concern Canadians and the government decided to concentrate its investigative and decision-making resources on this aspect.
Once again, investigating an applicant's reputation on the basis of vague information has proven to be an extra requirement that is not needed to ensure that an ex-offender has not been convicted.
Government Orders
Here are some statistics illustrating this point.
Although some 1,700 community investigations are conducted each year, only 71 applications for pardon are refused on the basis of these investigations. That is a rate of 4 per cent.
The government believes that Canadians would be better protected if the resources for community investigations were used for ex-offenders with more serious crimes or offences on their record.
In particular, the government will provide for investigations if the board believes that it needs more information before making a decision on a crime.
Thorough investigations will be required for all pardon applicants who have committed violent crimes, sex offences and serious drug-related offences.
Before I conclude, let me add that I think the changes are clearly a happy medium between the various proposals discussed before.
These changes will be discussed further in committee and perhaps improved, but I believe that they are an effective response to the various problems of the present system that have become obvious for us all.
I think that after they take a close look at the changes we propose to make to the Criminal Records Act, all hon. members will conclude that these changes are meant to make the pardon granting system more efficient, to improve the service given to a growing number of ex-offenders eligible for a pardon, to save money and to reduce delays in granting these pardons.
With these amendments the government can achieve these objectives and still protect the integrity of the system and continue to protect Canadians from offenders who have chosen to pursue their criminal activities.
This is what the government had in mind when it drew up these changes. I believe that adopting them will make it possible for all of us to reach the goal we have set.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate further the issues contained in Bill C-71, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and other acts in consequence thereof.

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
I want to say right off the bat that my colleagues on this side of the House and I accept as good and prudent the matters that are contained in the bill.
The bill addresses a problem that had developed over the years and was made apparent by interventions of a number of members of the House of Commons. My only minor criticism is that it took so long to effect such a minor change.
Having said that, there was another issue which became apparent to many of us in this House. That was the delay that was developing in the granting of pardons under the Criminal Records Act.
There were many people who were prima facie entitled to the pardons. They deserved them under the terms of the legislation, but it was taking a long time, in many cases upwards or in excess of one year to deal with the pardon, thereby preventing the applicant from getting on with aspects of his or her life that would have required the pardon. This bill attempts to deal with that.
This area of criminal records and the amendments here, the approach taken by the government, is a little bit like putting a foot into a worn-out shoe and patching it. I have had an opportunity to read this bill several times since being elected three years ago.
I am of the view that the bill is extremely weak. I think that the bill had its roots in a previous Liberal government, but this bill does not do the job. It is extremely weak. I want to point that out for the record. Hopefully the committee that takes this bill will be able to address some of these problems. I know the Solicitor General has been listening of late. Not quite a death bed repentance but the new Solicitor General has been listening to the justice committee and listening to Canadians. I do not want to give too much credit, sitting in opposition here, but I certainly want to give credit where credit is due.
The bill does, in band-aid fashion, address the problem of conditional discharges where individuals who were discharged at trial following conviction, either absolutely or conditionally, were still required under the existing legislation to go back and get a pardon for an offence which the Criminal Code says was deemed never to have been committed. That is a little bit like catch-22
in 1984. This bill does address that. Now those who have been discharged subject to a waiting period which will expire automatically will not have a criminal record, as was originally intended by the discharge sections of the Criminal Code. Well, good for them.
The other thing it will do is it will revoke automatically a pardon which was given under the statute where the individual involved subsequently commits an indictable offence. If you have been a good guy, good for you; if you commit an indictable offence after a pardon has been given, back to square one, your conviction is reinstated. That is quite fair and appropriate.
On a procedural basis, the National Parole Board has been given jurisdiction and authority to administer and grant the pardons. That will obviate the need to send all of those pieces of paper to cabinet to get the signatures of ministers and all of the procedure that is involved in there. That is appropriate. It is a good fit.
However, here is what is missing. I want to start with the title of this bill because the title does not even fit. The name of the bill is the Criminal Records Act. I want to say that the bill does not deal with the management of criminal records. It never did. It never had the intention to.
It is a bill to get rid of the criminal record, to use layman's parlance. That is what the bill is for. It should have been called the pardons act or the pardon of a criminal act or a record of conviction, something along those lines. The title was not a fit from that perspective.
There is another problem. As I stand here, I do not understand why the bill-keep in mind, we are dealing with what the bill calls criminal records-does not define what a criminal record is. That is of absolutely no help to those who administer the act. In fact, it is a hindrance and, as I hope to point out, a serious fatal flaw in achieving under the bill what I think everyone wanted to achieve many years ago. The bill does not contain a definition.
In addition to not having a definition of what a criminal record is, a bill dealing with criminal records, the bill also deals with pardons. What else does the bill not have? It does not have a definition of what a pardon is.
May 5, 1992

Not only does the bill fail to address precisely what it is dealing with in terms of criminal records but it also does not even define what it is dealing with when it talks about a pardon. These are serious fatal flaws.
In fact if we go back to the title, we used the term criminal records in questioning the officials about this bill last week. It became apparent that what we were really talking about under this bill were not criminal records. We were talking about what is called a record of conviction. Keep in mind that when somebody gets implicated under the Criminal Code there are all kinds of records of the criminality. There are the charges laid, the disposition of the court, police reports, recommendations to the prosecutor, the sentencing decision. There are a whole lot of criminal records.
That is not what this bill is dealing with. This bill is trying to deal with what we call the record of conviction. This bill does not even mention record of conviction. It never comes up, never, even though the term record of conviction in a specific, simple one-page form in the Criminal Code is sitting right in there, that is the record of conviction.
It is a bit of an absurdity that the act we call the Criminal Records Act does not define pardon, does not define criminal record, and does not even deal with criminal records. It deals with records of conviction. I let that stand and hopefully the committee can deal with that.
What happens under this bill when an undefined pardon is given? The expectation of the citizen is that the record of conviction, not the criminal records, but the record of conviction will be purged from the system. It is a fact that records of conviction and copies of records of conviction are contained all over Canada in court houses, in municipal police force offices and with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which maintains a registry for that purpose.
The registry is called CPIC and is a record keeping system that the RCMP retains. It keeps a record of all the convictions that it manages to get its hands on across the country. It also keeps track of all the other criminal records, records of the criminal procedure, not just records of conviction.
It is a fact that not all records of conviction are given to the RCMP.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you might like to interrupt at this point. We can continue the debate later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the tragic events in Toronto should not distract us from the root causes of what ails our large cities: namely, the sense of despair and aimlessness that results from inadequate social and economic support measures for the poor, the young, and the uneducated.
Intensive measures are needed on rehabilitation from drug addiction, on the dangers posed by drugs, on education, on youth training, on apprenticeship and employment, on social housing. Race relations must be the object of an intensive educational campaign. The government must create an appropriate social and economic climate to ensure that social turmoil and unrest do not occur in Canada. We in the opposition call on the government to address these problems as a matter of urgency and to take all the necessary measures with great speed.


TREE PLANT CANADA
Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity provided by National Trees and Forests Week to mention a new program put forward by Forestry Canada as part of Canada's green plan. Tree Plant Canada is an innovative tree planting initiative. A dozen Canadian cities will launch the program regionally throughout National Trees and Forests Week. The planned activities will bring together Canadians and the public and private sectors to make a

May 5, 1992
direct contribution to improving environmental quality by planting trees in communities across Canada.


WATER LEVELS
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, water levels in the northwest part of Saskatchewan are disturbingly low. Community water resources, agricultural production, fish stocks, wildlife habitats, and tourism initiatives are all in jeopardy because of low water levels downstream from Cold Lake in the Pierce-land and Goodsoil areas of my province.
Officials from Alberta Environment and the Saskatchewan Water Corporation confirmed that the winter snowfall this past year was not sufficient to compensate for the evaporation expected off the surface water this summer.
Water has been withdrawn from Cold Lake and the underground aquifers which flow into and under Cold Lake to accommodate a heavy oil extraction plant on the Alberta side of the border. Many people are now blaming this withdrawal for the lower than usual water levels on the Saskatchewan side.
In light of the serious nature of this situation on fish, wildlife, and people I today call on the Minister of Fisheries to launch a full review of this intra-provincial water conflict to ensure the causes are determined and solutions are found and enacted.


FIRE-FIGHTERS
Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, today fire-fighters from across Canada are meeting with their members of Parliament to discuss important issues relating to their profession. They have come to Ottawa to voice their concerns and offer suggestions regarding pension and compensation benefits as well as ways of controlling risks to fire-fighters associated with infectious diseases and hazardous materials.
Fire-fighters risk their lives daily in their efforts to save the lives and property of their fellow citizens. Fire-fighting is one of the nation's most dangerous occupations and men and women who enter this profession do so in service to Canada.
I encourage all members of Parliament to return the care and compassion shown by our fire-fighters by giving them the time and attention they need to share their views and concerns with us on these important issues. Let us all salute and thank the fire-fighters of Canada for their work on behalf of their fellow citizens.


OTTAWA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the regrettable incidents in Los Angeles and Toronto remind us how fortunate we are to live in such a magnificent city.
Thke for example the Ottawa Police Force in my riding. The Ottawa police are sensitive to the needs of local minority groups. They have developed a number of programs to promote race relations. For example, the force celebrates March 21, the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discord, with a police community multicultural reception.
Aboriginal and visible minority youths interested in pursuing a police career are encouraged under the Police Minority Youth Program and with a scholarship from the Ottawa Police Services Board.
Thanks to the leadership of Chief Tom Flanagan and his officers, the force will be participating in a symposium on Parliament Hill this weekend entitled Strengthening the Dialogue. The conference will bring together representatives from ethnic minority groups and members of the Ottawa-Carleton area Police Community Council.
Congratulations and keep up the good work.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, several days ago, the Conservative Minister of National Defence and member for Frontenac awarded a billion dollar contract for the purchase of military helicopters in the greater Montreal region.
Many federal Liberal and NDP members complained about what the Conservative minister did. No one complained when the Conservative government announced last year that a billion dollar communications
May 5, 1992

system for the armed forces would be built in Western Canada.
Today Quebec is still perceived by many as Ottawa's favorite in awarding the most lucrative military contracts. Alex Morrison, director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, an independent organization of experts in Toronto, believes that is a false perception. Apparently to the member for Frontenac a job is a job and a dollar is a dollar, says the retired colonel. In the past few years, I have not seen many people fight for their province in such a way.
By his action the Conservative minister and member for Frontenac is helping Montreal, Quebec and Canada.


An hon. member:: A Canadian is a Canadian!


PETRO-CANADA
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada chairman Bill Hopper, affectionately known as "Two Limousine Bill", has just announced the layoff of yet another 1,200 people at Petro-Canada by the end of the year.
Not only does Petro-Canada contribute to tin-pot dictators in Myanmar, it appears that this company now seems to be practising Burmese-style labour relations on its own employees. While chairman Bill Hopper and his cronies are enjoying the good life, Petro-Canada workers are sent out to pasture.
This sounds an awful lot like Tory justice.


RIGHT HON. JOE CLARK
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, in the Indian world the naming ceremony is one of the highest honours one can receive. On the weekend, George Saddleback performed the ceremony in Jasper, Alberta for the Samson Crees of the Four Nations in Hobbema.
The constitutional affairs minister, was given a chief's head-dress and the Cree name "Mikisu", Chief Bald Eagle. I welcome Mikisu to the Cree tribe and ask this
House to join me in congratulating the minister for his well deserved honour.
The naming ceremony was in part thanks for his 20 years of outstanding service to Canada. May the Bald Eagle spirit give him vision, wisdom, courage and strength as he continues to work for Canada. It is because of men like him that we are number one in the world.


CITY OF NEPEAN
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: This year, 1992, the city of Nepean, Ontario, is celebrating its 200th anniversary. Nepean's history began in 1792 when land was granted to an Irish veteran of the American revolutionary war, George Hamilton.
Historian Dr. Bruce Elliot describes how Nepean's past generations moulded the nation's capital. Much of present-day Ottawa was once part of Nepean which is older than Ottawa itself.
The construction of the Parliament Buildings began in 1859. Much of the sandstone used to construct the Parliament Buildings was quarried near Bells Comers in Nepean. The growth of the timber trade, the importance of milk production, its survival of the great fire of 1870, the birth of the streetcar suburbs, speculative land booms are all a part of Nepean's past.
Today it is a city of 108,000 residents and over 2,100 businesses.
I along with the city fathers, its businesses and residents am happy to join in the celebration of Nepean's 200th anniversary and Canada's 125th birthday.


TORONTO RIOT
Mr. Garth Tbrner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most troubling events in recent Canadian history happened last night. Hundreds of people rioted in Toronto in what police officers described as sheer anarchy. The crowd smashed windows, looted stores along Yonge Street and clashed with police.
In some ways, it was a reaction to what some members of the black community feel is a systemic bias against them by the legal and justice system. In other ways it was a crass copycat demonstration after media saturation of

May 5, 1992
the Los Angeles violence last weekend. In still other ways it was merely the hooligan action of a disruptive gang of young thugs.
Whatever the reason, the results are the same: Just like in L.A., there are no winners out of an action like this, only losers. People get hurt, stores get robbed, relations with the police deteriorate, an ethnic community gets stereotyped and nothing gets resolved.
I urge that the violence not be repeated; that community leaders show responsibility and that everybody respect the streets of Toronto, one of the greatest cities in the world.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Last week a Nova Scotia woman who fled with her baby from her abusive partner was murdered by him. She had called the police. She had laid charges. He broke her bones. He received probation, and later, only a month in jail for a subsequent charge. She stated publicly: "I'm scared for my life". She, like too many other women was not taken seriously.
Last November the Ontario NDP government launched the first ever wife assault education campaign to focus attention on men's and community responsibility for ending violence. Seventy-two per cent of the men surveyed said they were influenced to take responsibility for their actions as a result of these ads.
Today the Ontario government has launched a media campaign on sexual assault to sensitize the public, police and professionals that every sexual assault is serious, that every sexual assault is a crime.
I call upon the Minister of Justice to implement mandatory gender sensitivity training for the judiciary so that the public, the police and professionals understand that violence against women cannot be tolerated and must be stopped before more women die.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it is not all bad news out there. In fact there is some rather good news that has to be told.
There are signs that our policies of fighting inflation and deficit reduction are producing positive results, particularly for Atlantic Canada. Statistics Canada reports that Atlantic Canada had an over-all growth rate of 1.8 per cent, outperforming the entire country last year, with New Brunswick experiencing remarkable growth, posting a 2.1 per cent increase, the best in the country.
When it comes to having money left over after paying your taxes, that is the growth of disposable income, New Brunswick was second best at 4.9 per cent, exceeded only by British Columbia at 5.2 per cent. The Royal Bank is predicting even stronger growth this year. That is good news for Canada and that is good news for New Brunswick. That is proof that our policies are working.


PROFESSOR GORDON FREEMAN
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, all of us watched with horror the events in Los Angeles and in Toronto, but unfortunately institutionalized sexism and racism are all too rampant even today. Consider the case of Professor Gordon Freeman who, in a study that was published by the Canadian Journal of Physics, funded by the National Research Council, states:
Working mothers are the root of most evils facing society today- from drug abuse to family violence and culminating in Marc Lepine's massacre of 14 women at the Universite de Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique.
This same professor claims that the absence of fulltime mothering is leading to day care children who "have very little chance of becoming normal productive adults".
This is not a flake, this is a professor at a respected Canadian university and a professor whose works have actually been published in a Canadian journal. It is little wonder that my daughter and other young boys and girls are growing up facing the kinds of statements that lead them to wonder what is their role in an equal Canadian society.
May 5, 1992


ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies is a federation of autonomous, community based organizations. They work on behalf of women in conflict with the law.
These quiet organizations are dedicated to offering services and programs to women in need while presenting the public a forum with which to advocate reforms of the justice system as it affects Canadian women.
The work of the Elizabeth Fry Society can be thankless. I want to take this opportunity to commend this association for their tremendous contribution to Canadian society.


TORONTO RIOT
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, Monday's riot in Toronto partly expressed the anger of young people, especially young people of colour, who feel shut out of Canadian society and Canadian justice. They have reason to feel shut out not only in Canada but in the whole world.
Studies in Canada show that young people have extra high unemployment and that people of colour do not have a fair chance at good jobs.
Recent changes of immigration rules by North Atlantic countries mainly restrict people of colour from entering Europe or North America. Twenty per cent of the world's people, mostly white, consume over 82 per cent of the world's goods leaving the big majority of the world to go hungry.
In four decades, millions of persons of colour were killed in wars fought mainly with weapons sold by white people.
I ask my fellow members of Parliament, mostly white males like me, if these numbers were reversed what would we do.
Oral Questions TORONTO RIOT


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the violence that occurred in Toronto yesterday proves that these things do not just happen in Los Angeles.
The looting, the assaults, the vandalism were senseless. They appear to have grown out of but to be unrelated to the peaceful demonstration that preceded them.
Unfortunately, they undermined and detracted from the real message of the original peaceful demonstration. That message, the message of Los Angeles is the need for all of us to ensure, not just pay lip service, to the principle of equal treatment for everyone and also the need to narrow the gap between the more and the less advantaged in our society. If we do not heed that message everyone will be a loser.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Last night Canadians were shocked and horrified to see a small group of vandals take advantage of a peaceful demonstration to go on a rampage in downtown Toronto. There is no excuse for vandalism, but there is an explanation for the terrible situation in Toronto and in other big cities of Canada.
Violent crime has gone up 40 per cent since 1984. The UN report, the report the government uses so often lately, said that Canada has the highest rate of drug related crime in the industrialized world.
In Toronto 213,000 people are unemployed, and 18.8 per cent of the young people in Ontario do not have jobs. Therefore, for seven years the policy of this government has been turning its back on the problems in the big cities of Canada.
When will the government realize that its policies are making the situation worse, not better in the big cities of Canada?

May 5, 1992
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, of course we all deplore the acts of violence that took place in Toronto. Those will be dealt with by the courts in an appropriate manner. Therefore, I cannot comment on that.
We can, of course, deplore social situations, situations of unfairness which give rise to discrimination of any kind which in turn gives rise to frustration and acts that one would hope not to see in a country like Canada.
The government has tried through its employment policies. My hon. friend is quite wrong. In point of fact when the Hon. David Peterson was premier of Ontario his government and ours managed to bring unemployment in Ontario and in Toronto down to record lows, in the neighbourhood of 3.5 per cent or 4 per cent.
There have been very important social programs and social initiatives taken to curb violence, to integrate immigrants into the metropolitan Toronto area. Appointments have been made to signal the importance of ethnic communities to the multicultural fabric of Canada. Some people use the term multiculturalism as a way of dividing Canadians, to suggest that immigration is of no value. Immigration is vital to the well-being of Canada.
For example, the appointment of Line Alexander as the first black Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, the appointment of the new Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the first black in Canadian history to be Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada were important because it is important that minorities be in positions of fundamental importance in the decision-making process.
All of these help in dealing with difficult social pressures that exist in great metropolitan areas. I know that I can count on the support of my hon. friend in bringing forward policies that will alleviate tensions and improve the situation in Toronto and elsewhere.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister, but he did not answer my question. Since this government came to power, the number of violent crimes in Canada has increased 40 per cent. I told the Prime Minister that the UN report the Prime Minister keeps quoting all the time says that Canada has the highest
level of drug related crime of any country in the Western world.
I wish the Prime Minister would realize that his government's policies have created a bad situation, not only in Toronto but also in Montreal, which has more than 200,000 unemployed, and in Quebec generally, where 19.8 per cent of young people have no jobs. That is the real problem. If the government does not change its economic policies and does not take all necessary steps to find jobs for young people who are really desperate, this country will be faced with even more violence than we saw yesterday.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if a mediocre economy generates violence, if that is the case, then perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would care to explain 1981-82 when the economy was in far worse shape than it is today. Yes, worse than today: higher interest rates, higher unemployment, higher inflation, worse across the board.
I would ask the hon. member for Ville-Emard, in Montreal, to look at the facts. Ten years ago, the inflation rate was 12.9 per cent, and now it is 1.6 per cent. The unemployment rate is lower, and interest rates are lower as well. Do not tell me today that the economy is to blame.
There is of course an economic dimension. There is the problem of drugs and violence associated with drugs. There is the problem of poverty in our large urban centres. There is the lack of economic opportunies. However, we are working closely with the provincial governments, the Liberal government and the NPD government, to alleviate these problems. I think it would be helpful if the Leader of the Opposition would be more specific in his recommendations, instead of trying to cloud the issue.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am
not the one who went back to the past. It was the Prime Minister who went back to the past. When we had some difficulties some years ago we made sure it was not to be on the social fabric of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
May 5, 1992


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Rather than always talking about the interests of big business we cared about the people who were unemployed. They had some hope then that they do not have today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I can tell the Prime Minister one thing today. I would like to make sure that he understands that this is a wake-up call. I would like to urge the Prime Minister to face that reality. Is he ready to face the reality that these problems need action now, not cuts in programs relating to race relations and job creation and opportunities for everybody. We must make sure that pride and confidence will return to Canadian society.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, just by way of correction, my hon. friend said that he is not the one who went back to the past. That statement is of course false. He was the one who raised it in his first question when he referred to all of the social ills in Toronto beginning in 1984. That is exactly the way he began his question.
I think my hon. friend is right about facing reality. That is exactly what we ought to be doing rather than seeking to ascribe blame to events that occurred 5, 10, or 20 years ago. We are dealing with a social problem today.
It is very complex and very difficult to tie it in to all kinds of realities that are neither Conservative, NDP, or Liberal. They are human realities. They deal with discrimination. They deal with racism. They deal with unfairness. They deal with all of the problems that exist in a great pluralistic society.
At the base of all this is tolerance. What we must seek to do through our economic policies, our social policies and our attitudes coming from this House of Commons, is a degree of civility and tolerance that will persuade Canadians of that of which the rest of the world is assured, that Canada is indeed with its imperfections, the best place in the world in which to live.
We must be more vigilant. We must be ready to convey more resources to that problem.
Oral Questions
However, my hon. friend will not solve the problem with slogans. He will not solve the problem with anything other than dedication and co-operation with the provincial and municipal governments.


RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, this is not a forum for debating tricks. This is reality.

Relations between the police and minority groups are tense, employment equity is only a dream, the Court Challenges Program has been cut and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation has been put on hold.
How can this government claim to address the problems of race relations when it takes no concrete action whatsoever to respond to the real needs of all Canadians?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, we have made a great deal of progress in police relations. After a day of consultations held here in Ottawa with the minority community, the police institute and the government, we set up a five-part national action plan. Last Monday we opened an information centre here at the police college, a training and recruitment centre for inter-police relations.
Just imagine: this year, Quebec's Black Community Council in Montreal voted Roland Bourget as man of the year. That means something. Do you think this could happen anywhere else? That is what we have achieved in terms of relations between the community and the police.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, the problems we are experiencing today are not a matter of white against black but of haves versus have-nots.

Canadians are fed up with this government's mixed-up priorities. The bureaucratic cost of multiculturalism has gone up by over $36 million while the funding for programs has been axed by $28 million.

May 5, 1992
Oral Questions
When will this government deliver on its promise to fight racism with action instead of empty rhetoric?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, our record over the past four years in helping establish partnerships and advancing the issue is quite well established and quite well known.
I thought the member might want to raise some of the particular initiatives, like March 21 which was the International Day for the Elimination of Racism, and how effectively that was carried out from coast to coast and the initiative of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. It has contributed $10 million of free advertising. That has helped improve attitudes from coast to coast.
I recognize there is a disease in this country. It is called racism. It is an evil that affects the victim and the perpetrator equally. I have said that we have to do far more in terms of asking all of the institutions of this community to reflect on their attitudes and allow for the full participation of our diversity. That is the benefit we have of being citizens: one equal citizen. All we want to do is participate fully and that will be given as a highest priority at all times by this government.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
First of all let me say this. I share the view and I think the view is shared on all sides of the House that the violent outrage we saw in Toronto was neither an appropriate nor acceptable means of expressing a grievance.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The television pictures revealed to us who was involved. It involved youth, alienated, powerless, jobless youth, and that is a question that I think we must address.
I would like to address the specific issue that is being raised here today and that is the question of racism in Canada. I do so within the context that we understand your commitment to the principle of equality in this country.
Therefore, given the importance of the issues that have arisen, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, on behalf of the black and visible minority communities of this country, if he would agree to have a private meeting
with the leadership of those groups so that we can discuss in an effective way a specific response to the situation that our country faces today.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, while I accept the description, the seriousness of the problem of racism anywhere in our society, racism, anti-Semitism, these are the banes of a civilized society. They have to be dealt with vigorously and firmly by governments and Parliaments any time they show or raise their ugly heads.
I think my hon. friend would want to be careful and to generalize from a most regrettable incident in Toronto, I know that he has not been doing this. Canadians ought to refrain from the suggestion that all of a sudden, Canada is engulfed with very grave and overriding problems of racism.
There are instances of racism that are most troubling. There are classic illustrations where, for example, visible minorities, blacks, the Jewish community have been assaulted. They have been criminally assaulted in their human rights.
Each one of those is a stain on our citizenship, but by and large there is general agreement, general recognition, that Canada has been to the extent that a pluralistic society is, free from much of this.
I would be happy to meet with my hon. friend and any other representatives of multicultural or visible minority groups across the country to see how we can not only deal with this serious problem but also improve on the good record that Canada has.
I thank my hon. friend for that suggestion. I would be happy to sit down with him or any others in trying to build a better society.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will be tolerant because I think you understand the sensitivity of the situation with respect to this member as well as the country.
I would like to emphasize that I have not characterized this nation as a racist nation nor have I said that the problem of racism is overwhelming. I have been very careful to say that broader social and economic issues are at the root of much that we have seen.
May 5, 1992

It should not be missed that there is a great deal of concern evolving within the visible minority communities of this country. I think most fundamental to all of this is the absolute recognition that there are going to be no Canadians who are distinguished from others in terms of their basic rights.
Yet the fact of the matter is that the Constitution of Canada, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically set apart certain minorities by virtue of section 15(1) of the notwithstanding clause. I think people should examine that. It is a separation and it is a specification of difference.
Therefore, I ask the Prime Minister if he would respond to that plea and controvert the decision of his party, as well as that of the opposition to reject an amendment to section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which would have imposed upon governments an obligation to preserve and promote racial and ethnic equality in this country.
That would be a most powerful message to ensure that all of us feel that we are operating in this political context as equals recognized as such.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer that question on behalf of my colleague, the right hon. Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
As the hon. member knows, Canada enjoys very strong legal prohibitions of racial, ethnic or gender based discrimination. I am aware of the suggestion made by my hon. friend's party in the Beaudoin-Dobbie report.
If a good case can be made that the current constitutional wording is inadequate, we will consider any constructive suggestions. Any changes, of course, would require the support of the provinces as well.
I encourage my hon. friend to make the same representations to the premier of his province and to encourage the kind of support around the table that would make the consideration of that suggestion possible.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Oral Questions
Last March 19,1 received a letter from the Minister of Justice stating: "A due share of responsibility for the breakdown of law and order lies with the provinces".
Yesterday the premier of Ontario did meet in an emergency meeting with his cabinet and leaders of the black community to address the serious crisis developing in Toronto.
Canadians want to know what the federal government did over the weekend to address this crisis in Toronto. What is the federal government intending to do to avoid future demonstrations and violence in view of the fact that we learned just an hour ago there is another demonstration being planned for Thursday of this week?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would caution the hon. member on his rhetoric in talking about a breakdown in law and order.
We have had a very unfortunate incident in Toronto. It is very worrisome and points to some social problems that all members of this House are concerned about and wish to address. In fact those issues have been dealt with by law enforcement authorities. We do not have a breakdown of law and order.
It is important to understand that it is not simply at times of crisis that we try to address these concerns. As I indicated in the House yesterday, one of the priorities of this government and certainly my priority as Minister of Justice, has been the question of inclusive justice and the effort of trying to make the justice system in all of its aspects, policing, the courts, corrections, more responsive to all Canadians so that they will feel confident in it.
I have been meeting over the past few weeks with the mayors of the big cities, including two meetings with the mayor of Toronto, to work toward the development of a process for creating a strategy on urban crime and urban safety in Canada. This involves the particular community relations characteristic of our larger cities and certainly characteristic of my own city of Vancouver which faces many of the same tensions.
We are working on the issue. I have been working co-operatively with those people who have the leadership at the community level. I have been meeting with police commissions. This is an ongoing commitment for

May 5, 1992
Oral Questions
us and not simply one that arises after a particularly regrettable incident.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the minister cautions me to watch the words I use. I quoted from her letter to me of March 19.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. The last budget presented by this government announced a series of spending cuts which eliminates the access of Canadians to affordable housing, to jobs and to job training.
The source of the unrest that we have witnessed in the last 24 hours in Toronto is a direct result of lacking opportunities for the jobless and the working poor.
Why is the government spending $20 million on a dog and pony show called the prosperity initiative, instead of dealing with the unrest brewing in our Canadian cities?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the dog and pony show stopped in 1984 when the government decided to stop throwing money at the problem and buying the illusion of prosperity.
The hon. member just stood up in the House in front of all Canadians and said that we had cut training funds for Canadian workers. That is false. The training funds for unemployed Canadians have gone up by $300 million.
No wonder that some people in this country are desperate when all they hear are deformations of reality. He talks about the prosperity initiative where private sector Canadians from coast to coast to coast gather together and try to challenge the future of Canada in a positive way, a thing the Liberals cannot do.


DRUG ABUSE
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Drug trafficking and drug use are at an all-time high across the country. Local neighbourhoods are losing the battle, including metropolitan Toronto.
I ask the minister that given this reality, why has the government steadily refused to amend the Narcotics Control Act so that assets coming from drug seizures will not only flow to the general revenue accounts of this
government but also will be shared urgently and fairly with local police forces and community organizations so that the front-line groups may have the tools with which to win the battle against drugs?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my friend makes a good point. The government has been involved in a sustained effort on the drug question through the national drug strategy.
Approximately six weeks ago I was in metropolitan Toronto and announced the formation of three drug units in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver that will be specifically dedicated with funds out of the renewal of the drugs strategy to attack the problems in those centres and to effectively make use of the proceeds of crime legislation. I am on record publicly as supporting a change which would repay the expenditures to the jurisdictions involved through the provinces from the proceeds of crime.
I know that the Minister of Justice is working on this particular matter. We would expect to have legislation in the very near future. I would welcome my hon. friend's comments on that legislation and his support and that of his party when we try to pass it.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, drug abuse is one of the root causes of the unfolding circumstances we have been witnessing in metropolitan Toronto.
But the forces who are battling the drugs on the streets and in the alleyways of Toronto and other centres across the country are losing because they are underequipped and underfinanced. They have heard this commitment of pending legislation or legislation in the near future for a number of years now.
Therefore I ask the minister again, why the procrastination despite the hundreds of representations and hundreds of petitions to change the Narcotics Control Act? Rather than giving us "the near future", when can we specifically expect action on an issue that has unfortunately reached crisis proportions?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend had had time in the process of his allegations, he would have wanted to give the government credit for bringing in the legislation in the first place.
May 5, 1992

In other words, the legislation has been brought in by this government. I make no apologies for this. We put a great emphasis when the proceeds of crime legislation was brought in on protecting the rights of people and personal property. This is not at issue between my hon. friend and myself.
It has come to our attention that the legislation would be much more effective if instead of the various administrations and police forces scooping, shall we say, assets for the federal government, they were able to get their expenditures out of that particular seizure.
We are fully in favour of that. That is why we have the drug units under way. The legislative changes take longer, but I can assure my hon. friend that we will be proceeding on that type of legislation.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Racism is largely a symptom of the fundamental problems affecting society. One of these problems is definitely a lack of jobs. The unemployment rate is more than 11 per cent across Canada, but the youth unemployment rate is 17 per cent, and in Quebec 19 per cent. People without hope are the real crisis in this country.
Is the government prepared to take serioulsy the warning it has just received? Will the goverment finally launch a series of specific programs to reduce the unemployment rate among young people?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how the hon. member can talk about receiving a warning. I do not accept that. I just told her member that racism is a dreadful problem that we must eliminate in this country, but we should not generalize and conclude that we have a racist society. We do not have a racist society in Canada.
We must not conclude from the events in Toronto that all this is due to the problems mentioned by the hon. member. Of course there are economic problems but as the International Monetary Fund said last week, in 1992 and 1993 Canada will rank first on job creation among all major countries belonging to the G-7. That is pretty
Oral Questions
good news. It is encouraging because we are talking about the industrialized world. It is excellent news.
Furthermore, this morning Ruth Getter of the Toron-to-Dominion Bank said the following, and I quote:

It means that we are climbing out of this long and deep recession.
The indicators are becoming more and more positive as we get new
numbers. I think that in the second half of the year we are going to see
a very strong recovery. Afterwards we are going to see a fairly strong
pick-up.
This is encouraging news for those who believe that economic growth and the proper sharing of economic growth will allay fears and tensions in communities, and I think we share that view.
The signals are important and encouraging for a durable-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we do have to move on.


SOCIAL PROBLEMS
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
No one on this side of the House, and certainly not myself, has said that Canada is a racist society. I must say that I resent the Prime Minister's implications that we are saying that on this side of the House.
What we are pointing out is that there are many structural problems in the country that can lead to the kind of incidents that we have seen. Any country will ignore, at its peril, poverty and unemployment.
Why have the Prime Minister and his government decided that it is more important to advertise across this country in newspapers the United Nations statement that Canada is No. 1 than to deal with some of these problems and to answer some of these questions?
Why has his government reduced money for low cost housing by 46 per cent? Why has his government taken $100 million out of job training? Why has his government reduced the CAP payments to three provinces by almost $4 billion and instead tries to tell us that a $500 million program for children will address poverty? The Canadian public will not buy it-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we have to tighten things up a little bit.

May 5, 1992
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I could not deal with the inaccuracies in the figures rattled off by my hon. friend except, for example, I will point out that she indicated that we had cut back on job training. In fact there has been an increase in job training dollars by $400 million, not a decrease.
My hon. friend says that there are many structural problems which give rise to some of these difficulties. I agree with her. The structural problems are the debt, deficit, trade liberalization, tax reform, and problems of children in poverty. We have been trying to deal with each one of these. Each one of these structural problems defies slogans and easy solutions.
We have been taking tough decisions. My hon. friend is at least partly right. The problem deals with the structural difficulties in Canada. We have been solving those structural problems and taking the heat for all of the political problems that ensue. But that is the way to go. We are solving these structural problems and-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, they created the structural problems by doubling the debt, by signing a trade deal and now a Mexican trade deal that has created over 400,000 unemployed. This is a government that has cut out the Co-Operative Housing Program, cut back on social housing-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put her question, please.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I would ask the Prime Minister simply this: Is the government prepared to look at some of the human problems that people face every day in Canada like lack of housing and lack of food and do something about it now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the human problems. What could be a more important human problem than children at risk, poverty as it affects children?
Yesterday in Toronto the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced a new program of $500 million to invest in children to make sure that they have better lives. Some people say that it is not enough. They are probably right. It is $500 million more today than the children had yesterday.
We are in the process of taking steps like this throughout our society while continuing to deal with the deep structural problems to which my hon. friend referred: namely the deficit, the debt, trade liberalization and tax reform.


CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The government says that the best way to tackle poverty is by getting its financial structure in order. That structure includes -the accounting fiction of passing welfare costs to the provinces and municipalities by imposing limits on the Canada Assistance Plan. Tens of thousands of Canadian children whose families were forced on to welfare during the recession are now disowned by the finance minister.
I ask the Prime Minister how making new promises while shifting old costs to other governments is going to create brighter futures for Canada's impoverished children and overburdened taxpayers.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware-if she read the budget she will have noted this-that in this particular fiscal year of 1992-93 some $38.9 billion will be transferred to the provinces. In her own province of Ontario she will note that since 1984 transfers to the province of Ontario have risen at the rate of 6.2 per cent per year. As a matter of fact the Ontario budget noted that between 1985-86 and 1990-91-1 believe those were the years that were used-that transfer payments to the province of Ontario rose during that period of time by 8.4 per cent per year.
I tell the hon. member-and I have said in the House before-that transfer payments to the province of Ontario have grown at a faster annual rate than the transfers to Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Alberta and British Columbia.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, when this government promised a national child care program many parents believed that finally they would be able to go out and get jobs so their children would not
May 5, 1992

be among the one million who are living in poverty today.
When the minister cancelled national child care he may well have realized that his high unemployment policies would leave few jobs for single parents any way.
I ask the minister why Canada's children have been written off government books but remain front and centre on its press releases.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a most unfair allegation. The truth of the matter is the child package this government brought in, in the last Parliament, was destroyed and killed by the Liberal senators in the other place prior to the last election, and she knows that.
We as a government know the constraints we have and we must face. My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has announced a number of programs. I think something in the order of $2 billion is provided toward child care.
The announcement made yesterday, the initiative in the budget and the ways and means motion I will be tabling today to reform the family allowance system are clearly parts of a program that will direct the resources to those people most in need. I think the hon. member would applaud that.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
It is quite clear now that this government does not know what it is doing with the Child Action Program. It has not consulted with any stakeholders. It has not had serious consultation with the provinces. It has not had any involvement from the social policy groups. It has no plans on the books right now to have any consultations with those doing the real work at the street level.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the House that the child development initiative announced by my colleague yesterday is the latest in a long line of initiatives this government has implemented since 1984.
Oral Questions
The problems are national in scope. That is why, as the federal government, we must find national solutions. My colleague has had consultations with the provinces and agencies, and all programs will be jointly managed. That is why one important aspect of this particular program is called Partnership.
We on this side of the House, are prepared to rely on community groups, the private sector and municipal and provincial governments. We intend to use this $200 million in funding to work together to ensure that our future will be in good hands.
How can the government announce a $200 million community action program when the government's own documents show there is not one single project on the books?


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, if the minister claims that the country has been consulted, why would neither one provincial government nor one social group in the last 24 hours admit to being consulted?
I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Cutbacks in the core area initiative, in child-parent centres, in training for aboriginal youth, in child care, and in social and co-operative housing have all caused Manitobans to lose faith in their federal government.
Why should Manitobans now believe that yesterday's announcement by the minister will make any difference in the lives of their children when the government is not even putting back what it has taken out over the last five years?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, could the House perhaps be persuaded to rise above day-to-day concerns and try to see what is happening to our families and children from a national perspective?
Since 1984 we have introduced a number of measures, and yesterday we announced another measure in addition to the $15 billion now available to children and families. Yes, we consulted with community agencies. Yes, we talked to the provinces. I was there with my

May 5, 1992
Oral Questions
colleague, the minister responsible, when we discussed these matters. We will continue to form partnerships for prevention and promotion and encourage families to be associated with what we call an improved quality of life.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Further to my question of March 31 this year about the Abitibi-Temiscamingue road network, could the minister confirm, for the benefit of the people of Abitibi-Temiscamingue, that Highway 117 from Louvi-court via Val-d'Or, Malartic, Riviere-Heva, Cadillac and Rouyn-Noranda to the Quebec and Ontario border, is now part of the Trans-Canada Highway and that this section will be one of the government's priorities at its upcoming discussions with the province of Quebec so that this road will be repaired to provide safe conditions for users?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Abitibi is no doubt aware that the conference of transport ministers has been discussing the Trans-Canada network for the past four years. Yes, Highway 117 is part of the Trans-Canada Highway and will be considered when the subject comes up for discussion again.


CHILDREN
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today in Montreal, the Minister of National Health and Welfare repeated his announcement of the government's new child development initiative. In this program, the government stresses the crucial importance of nutrition, education and child care. However, at the same time, the government has reduced its financial commitments to health and post-secondary education, set a cap on funding for the Canada Assistance Plan and turned down a national day care system. Does the Prime Minister not realize there is a contradiction between what he says and what he does, between his policies and this action plan?


Monique Vézina: No,
Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction between what we
say and what we do. Earlier I referred to the $15 billion we have invested in our families. We could of course refer to all kinds of programs that exist today, whether we are talking about family violence, dropouts, the national drug strategy or the disabled. We have in place a number of measures to support the families that need assistance. I maintain that the government's role is to support families in need, and when we support families we support the children who are at risk.


WARNING LABELS
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister on the government's action plan for children.
The government says that it will now require specific warnings on prescription and non-prescription drugs to prevent injury to children.
Will the government also insist on similar specific warnings on alcoholic beverages to warn women against drinking during pregnancy in order to prevent foetal alcohol syndrome, mental retardation, and other birth defects?


Monique Vézina: Through our actions, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to put in place mechanisms that will prove an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


LINGUISTIC DUALITY
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In his annual report tabled today in the House, the Commissioner of Official Languages pointed out that Canadians are not informed about linguistic duality and suggested that governments and leaders in society dare to talk about the role, importance and influence of the official languages in national unity.
I would like to ask the government whether it intends to show leadership by launching a vast nation-wide information campaign to explain the nature of our
May 5, 1992

country and the importance and value of its linguistic duality to Canadians.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, linguistic duality obviously includes the specifically linguistic aspect. In that regard we are now in the process of completing agreements with British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario to increase access to both official languages throughout the country and also to native languages in certain cases. I hope to be able to report to the House within a few weeks to announce, for the hon. member's information, that these agreements have been concluded.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the government leader, the Prime Minister. The commissioner says that the resources of the Secretary of State are, in his words, inadequate for the task of promoting official languages in society. It is one thing to provide a department with a mandate, but quite another to deprive it of the resources needed to fulfil its mandate.
Why is the government refusing to give the Secretary of State the resources required to provide leadership and support in promotion of official languages?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, given the mandate that I have and given the co-operation of the provinces that I have received to date, I am fully willing to assert that I feel that the resources that are available right now are sufficient. Should they not be, I would be the first to go back to cabinet and obtain additional funds.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of parliamentary delegations from Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation and Ukraine.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Point of Order WAYS AND MEANS


TABLING OF NOTICE OF MOTION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act. I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I had heard that the hon. member for Spadina had asked for an emergency debate dealing with the matter related to the incident in Toronto. Looking at Standing Order 52, which provides for such debates on an important matter requiring urgent consideration, I am not sure that that really applies in this case.
I did want to indicate to the hon. member, and I hope that we will have agreement in the House, that certainly the government would be supportive of any consent motion to have a debate in accordance with the provisions set out in Standing Order 52, namely starting at eight o'clock and carrying on with the conditions listed in that Standing Order, if that was agreeable to the Official Opposition. It is certainly agreeable to the government.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some consultations and I wish to indicate to the House quite clearly that the Official Opposition would agree with the suggestion of the government House leader in terms of having this debate this evening, if all other hon. members would agree with the substance of the motion, as put forward by our colleague, the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I certainly appreciate the very generous comments by the government House leader and the official opposition House leader. I think this is an excellent way to proceed and it leaves us with a good example on political issues of the future.

Privilege
We recognize the request went to you and we now await your decision.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that there were no consultations; as usual the government often fails to consult. Given the seriousness of the events and the consequences that might follow for all the provinces in this country, I am sure that it would be worth discussing.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the suggestion made that the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina's application this morning be agreed to unanimously then that is so ordered and debate will begin at eight o'clock and will follow the usual terms of an emergency debate.


PRIVILEGE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise on this question of privilege, but I believe that we must absolutely make the general public and this House aware of something that took place today. I am of course talking about the tabling of the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages in this House.
When I entered my office at eight o'clock this morning, I found in my correspondence a notice to the media in which journalists were told that they could obtain a copy of the annual report, as well as a press book and other releases and related documents.
I contacted the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to obtain a copy of the annual report, recognizing, as usual, the embargo imposed in such circumstances when members of Parliament have an opportunity to familiarize themselves with a rather bulky and interesting document.
They refused to provide me with a copy of the report. I asked for some explanation and was told that they would phone me back in the next 15 to 20 minutes. However, half an hour later, I received a telephone call from a lady, whose name I will not mention. That person, who is the secretary of the Deputy Commissioner, told me:
"No, you will not get a copy; copies are not distributed to members of Parliament. Tliis is an order that was given to us by the Commissioner of Official Languages. That is the way it is going to be". I pointed out to her that this was an unusual situation that was totally unacceptable to me as a parliamentarian.
Mr. Speaker, you are very well aware of what this is all about. It has long been established that members of Parliament have the privilege of familiarizing themselves with documents tabled in the House. There are briefing sessions and in camera meetings during which the document is explained to us. That is done for eveiy report.
But in this case, it seems to me that the media were deemed able to keep the report secret until it would be tabled, but not members of Parliament. That, is neither right nor acceptable in my opinion. If the media were given access to the document, I believe that members of this House for whom the Commissioner of Official Languages works after all, since he is an officer of this House, should also have the right to familiarize themselves with the report, and not only the members of the media.
The press release is as follows:
In addition to the annual report, members of the media will be able
to obtain a press book from any office of the Commissioner as early as
8 a.m., but cannot release its contents before 11 a.m..
I would like to raise the question of privilege and give appropriate notice. I might not make a motion, because I believe that the commissioner is well intentioned and that maybe he was not aware of the current practices whereby members of Parliament are given the same opportunity as the media to familiarize themselves with the report. However, I thought that I should raise this issue today because I believe that the privilege that we have to be informed and to have the same information as the media is an important one.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: This question of privilege is news to me, Mr. Speaker.
Everyone knows the devotion and concern of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for this important issue of official languages. This is a major report and it seems totally unacceptable-I am weighing my words carefully here-unacceptable, incredible and arrogant that it
May 5, 1992

would be made available to the media, not that I am against the media being informed, but not when the hon. member who is our official opposition critic is told that he will have to wait until the crucial moment, that is to say 11 a.m., to get a copy. How can the hon. member be expected to fulfil his duty as member of Parliament and his official duties as critic for the opposition? That is absolutely incredible.
It is not the first time that something like this happens. Often, in their haste perhaps, ministers do not file certain statements in time, but for a senior officer of this House, to do so was indeed to deny us access to a report in due course. I know the interest you take in this issue and I know that the Speaker will give it due consideration.

I am sure Your Honour will give great consideration to the point put forward by our colleague. I thank him for not pushing it today. He- is raising it at the first opportunity. He is asking Your Honour to look into the matter and to report as Your Honour will see fit at the first opportunity.
I would like Your Honour to understand, and we know that you understand, that he is not the only one. We really take seriously this matter and we will be expecting your reply at an intelligent time, as always.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, my two colleagues who have just spoken have focused on the particular issue.
I hope this matter, which I see you are taking quite seriously, can be dealt with expeditiously because here we have a situation of an official of Parliament denying the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier a copy of a veiy important document until a particular time is reached, while on the other hand, copies of the said document have been made available to members of the media.
There seems to be a real demarcation of what is correct and what is not correct. I would suggest to the Chair-I seek the guidance of the Chair-that this is an inexcusable mistake. It is an inexcusable discourtesy to members of this House and particularly the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
Privilege
I would hope that the Chair would take under active consideration and move on this in a most expeditious manner so that we can have this resolved forthwith.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the points placed forward by my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier particularly.
His voice represents the concerns of a number of members who presumably experienced something similar to himself this morning. Knowing that the Commissioner of Official Languages is an officer of this House and that he reports to the Parliament of Canada, not to the media of Canada, he ought to know very clearly in what order this reporting process ought to occur.
I think we were all somewhat taken aback this morning to learn of these events. What is very important is that the Commissioner of Official Languages is not a representative of the government. He represents the House of Commons. He is an officer of this House.
We all make special efforts to keep the matters surrounding official languages as non-partisan as possible. I think in that same spirit that the Commissioner ought to acknowledge the importance of tabling his report in the House of Commons, and at that point releasing it to others. The members of the House of Commons and yourself, Mr. Speaker, ought to be the first people informed of any report tabled in this Parliament.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have just learned of this incident through the intervention of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and I view it with great seriousness.
All the privileges of all members of this House are the same. Since this intervention has come from a member whose commitment to the issue of official languages is so genuine and so complete, and I happen to know rooted in some particular family history, I think it is a serious matter that we ought to deal with with all gravity.
I would just add though that the Commissioner of Official Languages as an individual I know would probably be the last person to have wanted this to happen. I pray that it is an administrative inadvertence. He, of course, holds the responsibility. I trust that Your Honour will do the right thing as the presiding officer of this

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
House in communicating to the commissioner, who is an agent of the House, to respond fully and promptly.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am veiy glad that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is now better able to understand the frustration that we feel almost eveiy day, because I think that the Commissioner of Official Languages did make a faux pas. However, as I see it, he followed the example set by government members.
While we are discussing this question I would like you to be so kind as to look at all the procedures and rules of courtesy and requiring notice in the House. Increasingly ministers make announcements outside the Chamber and they never report to the House. They are much more concerned with their press releases than with their fellow members of Parliament.
As far as notices and especially briefings are concerned there is no longer any respect for this House and for the function of elected members. Mr. Speaker, in your thinking, I would like you to go beyond what the Commissioner of Official Languages did and perhaps you might give a lesson in parliamentary courtesy to government members who do not give a damn about this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened with some concern to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and other members as well.
First, this situation does not involve an act of the Government of Canada but what I hope is a mistake made by senior officials of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. I also noted that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier did not present a motion, which is perhaps, I may say, an act of courtesy that is natural here in this House when we discuss the position of an officer of the House of Commons. Naturally I took the other statements very seriously.

I will certainly, moving on the interventions that have been made and carrying on with the suggestions that have been made by both sides of the House, take this matter immediately to the commissioner. As the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest has pointed out, we would hope this was an error. In any event it is a matter which is serious. I will accept the instructions of this House, take the matter to the commissioner and report back as soon as possible.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to
revert to Introduction of government bills, waive the 48-hour notice required and allow the Secretary of State to table a bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Do we have consent?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to an order made Monday, May 4, 1992, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations or other bodies, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think you will now find unanimous consent to revert to introduction of government bills, waive the 48-hour notice required and allow the Secretary of State to table a bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there consent? The hon. member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I can inform you that the minister conducted the customary consultations, which normally would have taken place beforehand. We are pleased to give our consent, and we hope his colleagues will take his lead in this respect.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered.

Government Orders



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert René de Cotret: for leave to introduce Bill C-78, an act to amend certain acts with respect to persons with disabilities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. de Cotret moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the various parties and agreement that we will move to Bill C-53 at this point. There is agreement that we will finish it in all stages and that we will waive the 48-hour notice so that the members can submit their amendments to this bill at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-53, an act to provide for the imposition of special economic measures, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to underline that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State indicated that during report stage amendments as proposed would be part of the over-all order waiving the 48-hour rule. I just want to have the Speaker confirm that we would be in a position to do that.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order, I have given the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs notice that I intend to propose an amendment at report stage. I assume that the same provisions would apply with respect to this amendment to clause 4 of waiving the 48-hour notice.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, that is the agreement and we wish to proceed that way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the hon. member from the opposition and the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is there unanimous consent to consider the amendments on the motions?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: As we do not have in our hands the amendment of the member for Winnipeg South Centre, I propose that the hon. member inform the House about the first motion of his party.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that in fact the Clerk is in possession of the amendments we have.
We spoke earlier, and we do have a list of amendments on which ours are included. I await the instructions of the Chair, but I distributed the amendments to the parliamentary secretary and the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party. I believe the Clerk also has possession of those.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair, through the Clerk, has a number of amendments presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, but we do not know in what order they should be. The Chair would appreciate it if the hon. member would indicate the order in which he intends to submit his amendments for consideration by the House.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, again if I might facilitate, there is an ordering number which, in consultation with officers of the table, we discussed earlier.
May 5, 1992

We begin with amendment A, which begins with amendments to clause 4 and then proceeds accordingly. I propose to follow that order.


Lloyd Axworthy: That Bill C-53 be amended in clause 4 by adding immediately after
line 12 at page 4 the following:
(4)	No order or regulation made pursuant to subsection (l)(a) or
(b)	shall,
(a)	apply to a Canadian that conducts a regulated financial services business outside Canada with respect to any transaction or activity, if the transaction or activity is carried on outside Canada and not for the purpose of evading the order or similar orders in another country or countries; or
(b)	preclude a Canadian that conducts a regulated financial services business from carrying out a financial transaction necessary to give effect to a commitment that became binding against the Canadian prior to the making of the order under subsection (1), but this shall not affect any provision of such an order or regulation that required proceeds of the financial transaction to be placed in a blocked account or imposes other requirements with similar effect.
(5)	In determining whether a particular transaction or activity by a Canadian outside Canada constitutes evasion for the purposes of subsection (4), a court shall consider, as evidence of evasion:
(a)	whether the Canadian has transferred assets or liabilities in large amounts to a jurisdiction that is not enforcing the sanctions to which an order or regulation under this act refers;
(b)	whether the jurisdiction referred to in (a) is one where the Canadian normally did not carry on business of the kind or scope that it is observed to carry on subsequent to the order or regulation;
(c)	whether the occurrence of the activities referred to in (a) and (b) coincides approximately with the issuance of an order or regulation under this act;
(d)	such other factors as the court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
(6.) For the purposes of subsection (4), a regulated financial services business is the business of a bank, trust company, securities dealer or other financial business the activities of which are of a nature that is subject to regulation when carried on in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I bring forward this amendment in response to representations we received during the committee from representatives of the Canadian Bankers' Association.
They drew to the attention of the committee what they consider to be a serious problem that would be faced by
Government Orders
the banking community through the application of the special economic measures.
In many cases, it would put those working in financial services outside the country in a position where they would be forced to choose oftentimes between a law or set of regulations asked for by their host country and those by Canada itself.
There was real concern that this would substantially impair the positioning of these financial services, these banking institutions, because of this extra-territorial application of the law.
The amendment is drawn on the basis that we certainly want to ensure that financial institutions obey the spirit and letter of the law. That is why, in the amendment itself, we make clear that the sanctions measures or the special emergency measures would be imposed for those who are directly trying to evade the impact of the law itself.
To meet some of the concerns that were expressed in the committee, we have added a subclause (5) which sets out what the nature of those evasive actions might be, whether the Canadian transfers assets or whether their jurisdiction is one where the Canadian normally did not carry on business or the currency activities referred to in A and B coincide with the issuance of orders or regulations under the act.
The case I am making is that this amendment would not undermine, change or alter in any way the ability of the Government of Canada, through Parliament, to ensure at a time of international crisis when the decision was to impose a wide-ranging effect of economic measures, that our financial institutions would be subject to the law and where it does apply outside the boundaries of Canada, it would only be done when it was clear that some form of evasive action was being taken according to the criteria set out in this amendment. I bring this forward in the spirit and hope that while it is very important that we continue to administer a law in a broad-brushed way, there are circumstances where the law must be somewhat flexible. We have to understand that institutions doing business outside the country

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
should not be penalized for those actions in the normal course of business. At the same time we should be able to capture anybody who is attempting to use those financial institutions to evade or escape the dictates or requirements of the law.
I recommend this particular amendment to the House and especially to the government members. I hope they will understand it is an attempt to respond to what we all recognize as a very clear concern raised by the banking community.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I take seriously the representation and the amendment which have been tabled by my friend from Winnipeg South Centre.
We had some very good discussion in committee on this very subject when the bankers' association appeared before us. As the member from Winnipeg has already pointed out, there is in a sense this is generic legislation. It is broad enough to give the government latitude to apply the sanctions, yet tight enough to prevent the loopholes we all fear would be in this kind of legislation.
As we discussed in committee, the financial world has become ever more complex in the last generation or two, and financial transactions are now done electronically. They are done by satellite and it is very difficult to even track them the way it was possible when everything was done with paper transactions not too long ago. First of all there is the difficulty of dealing with this. However, that is not the major problem.
I would point out, as the member has already suggested, that clause 4 begins with the term may. The Governor in Council may for the purpose of implementing a decision, so there is a judgment call already by the Governor in Council.
I would also point out that the amendment, as proposed, is really quite loose in its definitions. For example, 4(a) applies to a Canadian that conducts a regulated financial services business outside Canada. That is a fairly loose definition in itself. It goes on, and I would point out just for one other example: "For the purposes of subsection (4), a regulated financial Securities business is the business of a bank, trust company, security dealer or other financial business". It does not define
whether they are federally regulated or provincially regulated. It is a very loosely drafted amendment.
I think it would be a mistake to proceed through the debate without pointing out the concept of extraterritoriality to those who are concerned about this legislation. We think of that term usually by means of the definition the Americans have given to it, and as it has affected Canada when the Americans have implemented their definition. Their definition affects not only Americans living outside the United States or American companies operating outside the United States. It also affects other nationals in that host country working for an American company, such American corporations operating in Canada. Their definition of extraterritoriality makes Canadians obey American foreign policy in the way they apply that law.
This bill does not do that. I think we should make that clear. Our definition of the term extraterritoriality simply defines the behaviour of Canadians living in other countries and our country wants to circumscribe their behaviour as it relates to a belligerent country. We want to make that distinction very clear. Our use of the term is not in the American sense but is certainly a very narrow sense of the word in Canadian application.
The amendment is too loosely defined and drafted in our opinion. I think financial institutions have to accept the same parameters of other Canadian businesses. I feel the government cannot accept this amendment.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I have a question I want to raise with the parliamentary secretary if he would accept such a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent in the House for the member for Winnipeg South Centre to ask a question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: I think it is an important matter and as the parliamentary secretary knows, the amendment was moved late in the day simply because of the information.
The government has said it does not intend to support the amendment. I would ask the parliamentary secretary if the Government of Canada would undertake to raise this matter at the international and multilateral level, for example, the Bank of International Settlement, to see if certain international and multilateral rules could be applied as to how such sanctions would be applied to
May 5, 1992

financial institutions during this period. If we can get some international agreement on it, then it may be able to have further amendments down the line.


Benno Friesen: The member raises an important point. It gives me the opportunity to point out that much of this legislation is in the context of multilateral organizations. Canada is proposing these kinds of sanctions mostly in the context of working together with other multilateral organizations. I believe the member is proposing these kinds of discussions. I suppose he is thinking of the World Bank and the IMF and so forth. The hon. member nods his head yes.
They would come in the normal course of events because those organizations are working together with such organizations as the United Nations, the OAS, the African Development Bank or the InterAmerican Development Bank. They are already working in conjunction with those multilateral organizations. I am sure that is the normal course of events in the discussion of those multilateral organizations.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Negatived on division.
Motion negatived.


Lloyd Axworthy: That Bill C-53 be amended in clause 4 by striking out lines 14 to
38 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"4.(1) The Governor in Council may make an order or regulation under subsection (1.1)
(a) for the purpose of implementing a decision, resolution or recommendation of an international organization or association of states, ofwhich Canada is a member, that calls on it members to take economic measures against a foreign state,
Government Orders
(b)	where the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a grave breach of international peace and security has occurred that has resulted or is likely to result in a serious international crisis,
(c)	where the Governor in Council is of the opinion that grave violations of human rights have occurred in a foreign state and continue or are likely to continue, or
(d)	where the actions of foreign states, or of persons outside Canada acting under the protection of the laws or actions of a foreign state, present a significant threat to the global environment or the environment of Canada.
(1.1) In any of the circumstances described in subsection (1), the
Governor in Council may
(a)	make such orders or regulations with respect to the restriction or prohibition of any of the activities referred to in subsection (2) in relation to a foreign state as the Governor in Council considers necessary,
and
(b)	by order, cause to be seized, frozen or sequestrated in the manner set out in the order any property situated in Canada that is held by or on behalf of
(i) a foreign state, (ii) any person in that foreign state, or (iii) a
national of that foreign state who does not ordinarily reside in
Canada".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of proposing these amendments is to broaden the application of the act. As it presently reads the implementation would be based upon recommendations of international organizations, on threats of peace and security.
As we well know, the definition of peace and security has been substantially broadened in the last months or year or so. One issue that is increasingly becoming a matter of life and death security is the matter of environmental spoilage, pollution and total destruction of species. We have a major battle on our east coast with other countries at the present time about the dwindling cod stocks.
It is our belief as a party that eventually this must be subject to some form of international regulation and control so this valuable asset to Canada and the rest of the world will not be destroyed and disappear. It is one of the real cases of sustainable development in its clear and pristine form.
If such actions are to be taken internationally there must also be the ability to enforce such actions. It cannot be simply good wishes. When it comes to the question of peace and security, the application of sanctions is an

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
important instrument to use to prevent actual military conflict.
Equally, as we have seen tragically, the issue of human rights has also been a matter of international responsibility. Once again we have seen with the actions of the Kurds in Iraq and the plight of minorities in the fragmenting republics of what used to be called Yugoslavia, that the issue of human rights is increasingly becoming a matter that extends beyond one's boundaries as a matter of principle and as a matter of action.
It is important that as a country we have the ability to implement economic measures in a comprehensive way to deal with them. I can only point to the problems we ran into in the case of Haiti. There was an attempt to impose economic sanctions because of the serious human rights and democratic violations there. They did not work very well, partly because other countries, including our own, did not apply them very effectively. They were not subject to the kinds of measures that would otherwise be put into this act.
We seem to be attempting, through this legislation, to bring together in one statute the powers of the Government of Canada to respond and react to other forms of international transgressions and conflicts, whether they be in the environmental area or human rights area. If that is the case, it is important to add those definitions to this act so we can clearly say that in these evolving areas of international development, the Emergency Economic Measures Act would be in a position to be applied. It would be subject to some of the same, very useful rules about recalling Parliament, making sure there is a debate and an opportunity for a clear public airing of these matters, as opposed to the real confusion that surrounds them at the present time.
We include these amendments to ensure we do not simply look at the past and what occurred then. We must also look to the future and the kinds of emerging issues we as a country will be dealing with. I think it would substantially strengthen this bill if the amendment was adopted.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment that has been proposed by my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre.
I proposed similar amendments in the legislative committee on Bill C-53. Unfortunately the committee
did not see fit to adopt them. I hope the wisdom of the amendments will be more apparent now in this debate in the House.
These are very important amendments. We are talking about what can trigger a decision by the Governor in Council, or cabinet, to take the steps which are set out in this legislation to impose economic sanctions or something short of full economic sanctions. It might be a variety of economic pressure points to encourage countries, foreign states, to respect international law and end grave violations of fundamental human rights.
The bill as it is now worded would only allow the cabinet to impose these sanctions or apply this pressure where it is of the opinion, and I quote now from the legislation:
That a grave breach of international peace and security has
occurred that has resulted or is likely to result in a serious
international crisis.
Clearly there may very well be circumstances in which actions of a foreign state do not meet that particular threshold of a grave breach of international peace and security and yet the community of nations or indeed Canada will wish to impose economic sanctions or to apply economic pressure.
My colleague from Winnipeg South Centre has set out a couple of the circumstances in which this may take place. Grave violations of human rights may not be a breach of international peace and security, but is Canada to stand by, are other nations to stand by, while innocent people are being slaughtered, while people are disappearing, or in the case of global threats to the environment, whether it is the Canadian environment or the environment elsewhere? Surely Canada should have the flexibility to be in a position to take the kind of tough action which this bill would allow.
That is not possible at the present time. Under the United Nations Act which now governs the provisions with respect to economic sanctions certainly we cannot meet that threshold.
I would hope that as the world increasingly re-examines the notion of sovereignty and national sovereignty which has been used too often as a means of avoiding and evading responsibility for profound abuses of human rights, for very serious threats to the environment that as Canadians we might in this legislation demonstrate that we are prepared to take economic steps to respond to some of those crises.
May 5, 1992

Government Orders
It is for that reason I support the amendment which broadens the potential threshold which may give rise to the application of the measures set out in this legislation.
I would certainly hope that the government would see fit as well to support this amendment.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I guess one of the difficulties of this legislation is that all of us in the House support the same aspirations and the same goals when it comes to bringing about better human rights records around the world in every way.
Where we differ is not on goals or attitudes or values but on strategies. That is certainly true in this case.
I guess my problem with this is that while we have the same views regarding our apprehensions of human rights and degradation of the environment, we must still, as a country, as a government, apply the discipline of procedure in the way that we deal with those kinds of problems.
Let me give the House two examples that I see as problem areas. Human rights is a very loosely used term nowadays. I can suggest to members that if we went to numbers of areas in the world, social mores, in fact religious mores of those countries, if they were transplanted into Canada, would be considered human rights violations, but in those countries they are considered quite acceptable.
In the same case, to use a home-grown example, we now hear of people calling British Columbia the Amazon of the north. Anybody in British Columbia knows what a terrible accusation that is because it is untrue to the highest degree, but that does not stop people from suggesting it.
These are emotional slogans used against countries and therefore, because of these loosely termed phrases and sometimes loosely termed standards, we need to, as I said, apply the discipline of procedure. That is why Canada is proposing to work very closely in conjunction with other countries, other multilateral organizations, to bring about that kind of discipline.
When there is a consensus among the nations of the world that we should take action, then we would have that kind of a green light to do it, but under this legislation it would become a very subjective term and therefore we cannot support it.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion negatived.


Lloyd Axworthy: moved:
That Bill C-53 be amended in clause 6 by striking out line 34 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
Act.
(4)	The Governor in Council shall assess claims for compensation only in accordance with criteria approved by the House of Commons Standing Committee charged with External Affairs.
(5)	For purposes of subsection (4), the House of Commons Standing Committee may provide criteria of its own to the Minister designated under subsection (3).
He said: Mr. Speaker, under this bill there is a right to claim compensation, which is only proper and fair under the circumstances when people are hurt by a government action which is due to no consequence of their own.
However, as was made clear during several representations during committee, there is no opportunity for an independent review of compensation claims, so that those who feel injured would know that their request is based upon some judgment that is transparent, that is available for clear questioning and to establish their right to appeal it.
We had several quite lengthy discussions during the committee on the matter, and in view of those and in view of the fact the government again was concerned about establishing a complicated system of review, the amendment I propose is a simpler one. It does accomplish one important and, I believe, fair requirement, that the standing committee of the House which would be dealing with the over-all sanctions would set criteria under which compensation would be paid. That does not

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
mean that the actual award of compensation would be done by the members of the committee, but they would have a right to hear representations as to what criteria may be applied, particularly in cases where there are disputes as to whether the injury was caused by these actions or not.
I believe that in parliamentary democracy, one of the fundamental rights is the right to be heard, the right to have open access to express your concerns, and there is no better place in my mind than in front of a committee, in front of the elected representatives of the people who are held accountable. That is the difference between us and everybody else; we can be held accountable. I think it gives a sense of confidence to ordinary citizens in making a case of injury that they will be heard by a court of elected members who, if their judgment is wrong, can certainly be held accountable at the next election.
This amendment is designed to improve the procedures under which compensation can be awarded under this particular bill where a large amount of government power is imposed. It is an emergency situation wherein individuals can get caught up in the machinery and can often find themselves or their businesses in a precarious situation.
Again I recommend the amendment to government members, not because it alters in any substantial way the impact or the intent of the act, but I believe it makes it work better and fairer.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to support this amendment and to point out briefly that the legislation as it is currently worded does not even require that the Governor in Council designate a minister of the Crown as the minister having the duty to assess claims for compensation.
There was an attempt made at the committee to change the legislation to make it clear that where the government has decided, pursuant to this legislation, to move forward on sanctions, there must be a mechanism so that individuals and businesses and organizations which are adversely affected by the legislation have an opportunity to make their claim for compensation.
As the legislation is now worded, that is not even required. I would certainly hope that if the government is not prepared to make it mandatory, make it essential, that that kind of mechanism be established, at the very least they would be prepared to support this amendment which does involve the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs in establishing criteria for that compensation. I think Canadians who are affected by this legislation and indeed other innocent third parties who were adversely affected must be given an opportunity to have their day in court, if you will, pursuant to transparent criteria. That is the purpose of the amendment and certainly I support it.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I point out, as I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre did, that every person has a right to claim. That is always a right and we need to protect that right.
The effect of the amendment, however, is to make it mandatory upon the government and as I pointed out in committee as we discussed this, the trigger for it is an allegation in this clause. "Anyone who alleges to have suffered" and if we combine a mandatory settlement with an allegation of a claim we put two conditions together which make it very difficult to satisfy justice. It also removes the onus on the person who is affected by this and we should not do that.
Finally I believe that it is ushering the standing committee into an area where it has not historically been functioning. There is nothing wrong with starting something new but I think that this is an inappropriate way for the committee to function and therefore we cannot support it.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: No.
May 5, 1992


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Negatived on division.
Motion negatived.


Lloyd Axworthy: That Bill C-53 be amended in clause 7 by striking out line 40 at
page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"made
(1.1) For purposes of subsection (1), where a House of Parliament stands adjourned on the day on order or regulation is made under section 4 and the House is not scheduled to meet within five days thereafter, the member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada having responsibility under subsection (1) shall request the Speaker of the adjourned House to give notice to the members of the House that the House, for purposes of this section, shall meet on a date specified that is not more than ten days following the day on which the order or regulation is made and the Speaker shall immediately issue the notice.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment meets two very important objectives. First, it only makes common sense that under the bill the government, to its credit, has indicated that when an order is to be given under the requirements of the statute that it be referred to Parliament.
However, there is a problem. It does not take into account what happens when Parliament does not happen to be sitting. It does not take into account circumstances where there is a summer recess, Christmas adjournment, or whatever it may be. Therefore it could happen, as it did during the gulf crisis when Parliament was basically out of action for over six or seven weeks. Very important decisions on behalf of the national security and interest of Canada would be taken under the measures of this bill with Parliament not being informed or the measures under the bill being triggered as the government wants them to be.
This leads me to the second principle and it is that all parliamentarians on whatever side of the House have a fundamental interest in ensuring that the forum from which Canadians can voice their interests be fully engaged and involved in the making of literally life and death decisions.
As we were properly reminded during the committee hearings, while sanctions are not as drastic as going to war, it can still impact very violently upon people. It takes an enormous amount of will for Canadians to make it work. It calls upon incredible resources. In effect they
Government Orders
are saying that we are closing off relations of all kinds, personal, family, commercial, economic, with another country because it is a transgressor of some kind. Is it right for decisions of that magnitude and momentous impact to be taken without Parliament being involved? I think we would all have to answer, of course not. That is why we are here.
It does not mean the government's will is to be thwarted. I should say on the record that in proposing an amendment earlier in committee, the government was prepared to accept a modifying amendment to ensure that when Parliament is seized of an issue, it does not have to be seen just in a negative way, but in a way that can amend the motion. I think it shows there was a will there to ensure that parliamentary involvement is taken seriously and considered seriously.
Unless this amendment is accepted, all the good provisions of the bill will be held in abeyance until the Speaker, under the orders of the House, brings us back.
The government moved quickly on August 6 to respond to the invasion of Kuwait, as it should have. It was supportive, but Parliament was not able to get around to looking at it until after September 15. It was close to seven weeks before there was any opportunity for debate, dialogue, exchange, consensus, or even for Parliament to express its collective will in support of that particular measure, if that had been the will of Parliament at the time.
This amendment goes to the issue of parliamentary involvement as a partner in making this decision and ensure that on those occasions when Parliament is adjourned for good and logical reasons, that it can be brought back on a motion of the minister responsible to the Speaker.


Benno Friesen: I just want to make one comment regarding the details of the August 6 date. I know the member was accurate. It may have misled some people watching. He was speaking of the Kuwaiti invasion and the Canadian action was simply to begin the process toward embargo. The ships were steaming toward Kuwait, but there was no active war or anything like that at that point. I just want to make sure we all understand those circumstances.

Government Orders
The member is asking for a perfectly democratic proposition. I guess the only point I make is that he has already suggested we modify it to make sure the House controls its own destiny in one of the other amendments. We did that in a second amendment that he did not mention. In this case the Standing Orders of the House already provide that the House can be recalled. Therefore we see no reason to include it in the legislation itself.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Negatived on division.
Motion negatived.


Lloyd Axworthy: That Bill C-53 be amended by adding immediately after line 14 at
page 7 the following new clause:
"7.1(1) Where an order for regulation made under section 4 is approved under section 7, the Secretary of State for External Affairs shall, at least every three months following the day on which the order or regulation is made, lay before each House of Parliament a report providing detailed information.
(a)	On the commercial and economic impact of the order or regulation, expressed in dollar values, and
(b)	On the impact of the order or regulation on the lives and living conditions of the civilian population of the foreign state to which the order or regulation applies.
(2) In addition to the information provided under subsection (1), the Secretary of State for External Affairs shall provide such further information as the House of Commons Standing Committee charged with external affairs may require."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the previous amendment I cited the right of Parliament to be involved in making important decisions. Another important function of Parliament is to monitor and review those decisions to ensure that the conditions which gave rise to the original act of sanctions still pertain. If there is any lesson to be learned it is how volatile and changeable international conditions can be. Therefore it is important that Parliament be in a position to have a clear and accurate assessment from the responsible minister and officials as to the impact of these economic sanction programs.
Again I would like to refer to testimony before the committee. We were treated to some very wrenching descriptions of what is happening presently in Iraq to civilians, children and women, as a consequence of the sanctions program. That testimony was provided by individuals who have been there. Some veiy valued and courageous Canadians have gone to the area and come back. In fact members of all three parties in this House are now trying to jointly move a motion that would allow the thawing of certain assets so those people can be helped.
It made a very important point. Why should we have to rely on the testimony of a private citizen who happened to visit that country, and not have similar information deposited in the House by our own government? Surely if we accept as we do that these sanctions will have a very tough and serious impact, then we should know what that is. Every three months Parliament should assess whether the intent of this sanctions program is being met, whether revisions should be looked at, whether exceptions should be made or whether it is time for the sanctions program to come to an end. I do not know.
I do not know how many Canadians fully appreciate what is in this bill. This is one tough set of requirements. It puts members of the private sector under government mandate. It tells them who they can do business with. It prohibits the non-governmental humanitarian sector, private citizens, from a whole series of actions they would normally be free and have the opportunity as Canadians to exercise. That is tough. We accept it on the grounds that if it is not tough it is not going to work.
There should be a requirement that we assess periodically whether it is time to change, modify, alter or maybe toughen up. Nevertheless, if such enormous powers are being exercised in an unexamined way, it can lead to abuse and to people being unduly injured and victimized.

The point of the amendment is very simple. Every three months the minister is required to table a report on the impact of the sanctions in Parliament. Then if Parliament wants to pursue that through its committee structure or whatever, it is free to do it. If not, at least the information is there.
Therefore I go back to my original point. I think it is very important that we engage Canadians, through their parliamentary forum, in making these important foreign policy decisions. This would be another way to ensure it is done in a proper, open and transparent way.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important amendment. When we look at the practice of the United Nations in regard to sanctions and the review of sanctions, we see how important this is. The United Nations currently requires that every 60 days the sanctions committee of the UN determines whether there should be any changes to the implementation of sanctions, whether there should be a lifting of sanctions and what the impact of those sanctions are. In fact there must be a renewal of sanctions effectively every two months.
It is particularly important that this amendment be given serious consideration, because one of the things we learned from the tragedy of the war in the Gulf is that Canadians and parliamentarians cannot rely on the media to provide us with accurate information with respect to the impact of decisions made by our government with respect to sanctions. We simply cannot rely on an objective evaluation of the impact of this. We know this was the most heavily censored war in the history of this planet. Canadian journalists were not allowed anywhere near the front lines, let alone given an opportunity to look at the impact of decisions that were made here in Canada.
This amendment would require our government to provide fundamental information to Parliament, which is essential if we are to determine whether or not sanctions are having the desired impact. Are they pressuring the decision makers or are they simply hurting the innocent in that country?
We cannot rely on the media to give us that information. That is one of the reasons why I think this is such a terribly important amendment that Parliament make an evaluation every three months. It is not an unreasonable
Government Orders
requirement. As I said, the United Nations has a review every 60 days.
I would point out as well that the government accepted an amendment which I proposed in committee that required a full evaluation of the effective sanctions after the sanctions have been lifted. I welcome the acceptance of that amendment, but it is just as important that there be an ongoing review of the impact of sanctions. It may be even more important to review the impact once the sanctions are finished.
A number of witnesses including Dr. Eric Hoskins appeared before the committee. They suggested the primary concern they had with the legislation as it is now drafted is that it does not do nearly enough to ensure the protection of the most vulnerable in the country subjected to economic sanctions. It provides no guarantees whatsoever that there will be that kind of review of the impact.
This amendment would require the government to provide information with respect to the impact of sanctions. It would also give the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs the opportunity to seek further information.
If this legislation is to be effective, if Canadians are to have the opportunity, through their elected representatives, to monitor the impact of economic sanctions, this amendment must receive the support of the House.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, in our desire to discuss this openly, and in the desire of the member for Burnaby to win appeal for his amendment, we must be careful how we state the case.
In speaking of the gulf war he said: "It was the most heavily censored war in the history of this planet". I think the member, upon reflection, would maybe want to retract that statement. He has not looked at many wars and the censorship policies of those wars. If he thinks that war, with television cameras and printed and radio media everywhere was the most heavily censored war, it is a little bit difficult to take. I understand his desire to sell the amendment, but we still have to do it on the basis of accuracy.
I would like to point out what this amendment really talks about. First of all, I think there is a possibly unintended but nevertheless crucial inaccuracy in the opening clause which says: "where an order or regulation made under section 4 is approved under section 7, the

May 5, 1992
Government Orders
Secretary of State for External Affairs shall", and it goes on.
I just want to point out to the member for Winnipeg South Centre, who submitted the amendment, that the document or Order in Council the secretary of state tables does not require approval. It is tabled in the House for information. I just point out that there is an inaccuracy in the procedure he has drafted in his amendment.
That aside, in section (a) it goes on to read-this is a report-"on the commercial and economic impact of the order or regulation, expressed in dollar values, and (b) on the impact of the order or regulation on the lives and living conditions of the civilian population of the foreign state to which the order or regulation applies" and so on and so forth.
That is a very tall order for the department to undertake at the time we are discussing this. If it is necessary, things that are necessary need to be done.
Under the present House rules these kinds of reports are already available. As members recall, during the Gulf war a special House order was passed which convened the standing committee in a special session when the House was not sitting. It could call witnesses according to its own determination.
The Standing Orders already provide for this kind of information, possibly not in the statutory detail that this amendment asks for, but nevertheless it is available. I feel that we cannot support this amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Negatived on division.
Motion negatived.


Lloyd Axworthy: That Bill C-53 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 14 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"related shall remain unaffected.
7.1(1) An order or regulation made under section 4 that is approved by both houses of Parliament, whether or not amended, is subject to review by both houses of Parliament every six months following its approval.
(2)	Subject to subsection (3), a review under subsection (1) shall be commenced by motion and shall proceed in accordance with subsections 7(2) to (8).
(3)	On a review under subsection (1) the motion under subsection 7(2) may provide that the order or regulation under review, whether or not amended on the review, shall continue in effect for a specified period not exceeding six months."
He said: Mr. Speaker, considering the reaction of the government representative to the last amendment, it may appear that this amendment which is in the same spirit will not have a high level of success either.
I want to rise because it is important to point something out to the parliamentary secretary and to the Canadian public about what did happen and why this amendment is so important.
He is attempting to make the case that during the gulf war, during the period of economic sanctions, the government was forthcoming, was prepared to give all the information and it supplied people to go before the special standing committee. That was not the case.
I know time is short but let me comment just for a moment and I would ask for confirmation from my colleague for Burnaby-Kingsway. It is not a laughing matter. We, for reasons known to the House, were in Iraq for a period of two and one-half weeks to deal with the hostage problem. At that time, in late November, we had access probably unlike most Canadians, to the impact that sanctions were having on that country. One of the reasons I felt so strongly upon my return that sanctions were a preferred method to achieving our goal as opposed to undertaking a war was because we could see sanctions were working.
During that time when the then Secretary of State for External Affairs attended the standing committee and we debated the issue, he would make the statement constantly that he did not think sanctions were working.
May 5, 1992

When we asked him for evidence he did not have any or if he did, he did not give it to the standing committee. He never once produced any serious review or assessment of the workings of the sanctions program.
As a result, this country went to war without ever knowing whether or not sanctions would have worked. In fact, it betrayed a fundamental requirement of the UN charter under article 6 which said that you have to assess the impact of sanctions before you make a decision to engage in military conflict. Never once did this government, that minister, or this Parliament ever have in front of it any assessment as to the impact of sanctions.
Parliament was denied its right and we made the most crucial decision of any country at any time which was to go to war, to put its own people at risk, without ever knowing whether or not it was the right decision.
The parliamentary secretary says: "Hey, trust in us". I cannot trust in him because I went through a period where we asked the government to do exactly as these amendments asked and it refused. It would not do it and Parliament was denied the knowledge and information. That is the fact. That is the truth. That is the reason for these amendments, simply to say we should not trifle with the rights of Parliament or the rights of Canadians in the most fundamental issue, the right to know.
When there is such an important program of initiatives such as sanctions which can affect so many people in so many ways, surely to goodness while it may not be convenient for the minister and it certainly would not be convenient for the officials to have to put the material together, convenience is not the requirement of democracy; knowledge is.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add once again that this amendment is important. Certainly, as the member for Winnipeg South Centre has indicated, given the response of the parliamentary secretary to earlier amendments the likelihood of passage of this one is perhaps not great.
It is important that we underscore the fact that what is being sought here is an opportunity for Parliament to make an informed decision based on facts.
As my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre indicated certainly that is not the position Parliament was in
Government Orders
when we were called in the middle of January, 1991 to vote on whether or not to go to war and whether or not to participate in offensive military action.
I must say I am proud of the decision my leader and my colleagues made in that vote. For the reasons, among others, that the member for Winnipeg South Centre has stated very eloquently we voted against Canada's participation in that war. A number of the colleagues of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre also voted against that, presumably for the very reasons he has outlined so eloquently.
We must learn the lessons of that experience. We cannot reverse the decisions that were made, but surely we must learn the lessons of that experience and make it clear in this legislation that there must be a full, open, informed review process before sanctions are continued. That is the purpose of this amendment and we will be supporting the amendment.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, who
would deny that all of us are entitled to information and that the lifeblood of a good working democracy is accurate information.
I would simply point out during that entire debate it was not just the standing committee that was debating whether or not sanctions were working. He may be quoting the Secretary of State for External Affairs at that time accurately as to whether or not the sanctions were working. There was debate around the world as to whether or not they were working. There was not simply disagreement here; there was disagreement everywhere on whether or not sanctions were working. They say they were working because they visited and I accept their word.
The fact is the standing orders apply to this amendment as they did to the others. The Standing Orders provide that the standing committee is entitled to hear officials, to have reports from officials, and to hear cabinet ministers. The provisions they are asking for here are already in place.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.

Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Negatived on division.
Motion negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That Bill C-53 be amended in clause 4 by striking out line 16 at
page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
'Any person in that foreign state, provided that this paragraph may not apply to medical supplies or food intended solely for humanitarian purposes".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the very strong voices of those who appeared before the legislative committee studying this bill urging that it be amended to require that humanitarian aid, whether it be food or medicine, not be restricted during the imposition of economic sanctions.
The import of this amendment would be to ensure that those who are most vulnerable, those who are innocent victims of sanctions, not be further victimized as a result in many cases of the repressive and brutal policies of their own governments. Canada must not be a party to that.
Once again I must remind the House of the impact of economic sanctions on the most weak and vulnerable, for example, the children in Iraq.
We heard very powerful and eloquent evidence from Dr. Eric Hoskins, who was the co-ordinator of the Harvard study team, whose 90 researchers visited Iraq in September last year. They produced a 300-page report which detailed the human impact of the gulf crisis. This followed the report of the United Nations Undersecretary General who talked about the near apocalyptic conditions facing the people of Iraq following that war.
We learned from Dr. Hoskins that Iraqi children are dying at a rate of nearly 300 excess deaths per day, that more than 50,000 Iraqi children have already died because of the war, its aftermath and economic sanctions.
I would hope that no one in this House would argue that Canada, in imposing strong and effective economic sanctions against countries which have breached international law, against countries which have in some cases terrorized their own citizens, would want to further add to the pain and suffering of those citizens.
That is why this amendment explicitly provides that the sanctions which may be imposed pursuant to this legislation shall not apply to medical supplies or food intended solely for humanitarian purposes.
It has been suggested that the exemption provisions of the legislation allowing an applicant who wishes to ensure the provision of humanitarian aid to apply for an exemption or exclusion may be adequate. Again we have to listen to the evidence of Dr. Hoskins. He states very emphatically: "It is simply not adequate let alone feasible to provide a mechanism through which individuals and organizations providing humanitarian assistance in sanctioned countries must first obtain a permit for exemption".
He goes on to explain why this mechanism which is now set out in the bill is not workable. For that reason, it is essential that the sections of the bill in clause 4 which give the government power to impose sanctions must be restricted to ensure that that power does not include the power to stop the flow of humanitarian goods or services to people in the countries which are affected by those sanctions.
I hope that this amendment meets with the approval of the House. It is certainly very much in keeping with the spirit of the legislation. It responds to the very strong representations made by a number of witnesses, including Dr. Hoskins, the Mennonite-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. On a point of order the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the end of the debate on these amendments to the bill. I see it is five o'clock and it is time for the move to Private Members' Business.
I wonder if we could find unanimous agreement among members that we not see the clock for a few minutes so that we can finish this. I think it would suit all of us if we could do that. Would there be agreement for that?
May 5, 1992


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on the point of order. Do the parliamentary secretary and the Chair have a time in mind? There are still about four amendments, some of which are quite crucial and I think will result in debate.
We are certainly open to continuing but we do not want to do it simply to try to steamroller things through as long as we can be allowed proper opportunity to express our point of view.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, it certainly would not be my intention to try to cut off debate. The difficulty we have is that we started later than we intended due to the vote and the fact that it took longer than we anticipated. We had planned to begin this soon after three o'clock, in which case we would have been done.
I give you my word. I do not want to shorten the speeches that each of the members may want to give to the amendments but it would be nice if we could finish this afternoon because all of our schedules are tied in with it.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might get clarification with respect to Private Members' Business.
Is the member who was to proceed with Private Members' Business in the House and is that member prepared to agree to our proceeding at this time? This is the hour for Private Members' Business and unless there has been consultation with the member in question I am afraid it may be somewhat difficult to proceed with the bill at this point.
I seek some guidance from the House and, more important from the member who would normally be proceeding with Private Members' Business at this point.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: Mr. Speaker, I really would not mind if the debate were to continue except that sometimes it is hard to predict schedules and I have timed myself to present my private motion today.
If I could get the assurance from those who are seeking unanimous consent to extend this debate for no more than 15 minutes then I would add my approval to the request of the member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to complicate things. The only problem is that it is not only report stage. We also have to do third reading and I think there is need for some debate. It may
Government Orders
be that we will have to find some other time to reschedule. I do not want to hold this up. Unless you want to complete report stage and then we can reschedule third reading at another time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to extend for 15 minutes the report stage study of the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Agreed. The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, because there are a number of outstanding amendments and because we have very limited time remaining at report stage I want to conclude my remarks with respect to this amendment.
I also want to point out that the Canadian Friends Service Committee which appeared before the committee indicated that the Canadian Department of External Affairs has informed them that spare parts for ambulances do not necessarily comply with the provisions for exemptions which have been set up.
I would hope that legislation would be flexible enough to ensure that this kind of thing, whether it be spare parts for ambulances, whether it be essential food stuffs, whether it be medication, would in fact be provided under the terms of the legislation.
The exemption provisions certainly are ambiguous, in emergency situations unworkable, and for that reason I would hope that the amendment might meet with the support of the House.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that we support the amendment for the reasons which the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway outlined. We do think it would make an important representation. I would say that it would also show that having committee hearings is of some use, that you do listen to them and you do respond to them.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that the member said he hoped the legislation would be flexible enough for such things as spare parts and so forth. I assure him that it is because the clause begins with "may order" and therefore it does have some flexibility.

Government Orders
I would like to point out that the history of this kind of flexibility has been so widely abused because we are dealing with despots and despotism always makes the disadvantaged and the unprotected suffer the most. They always protect themselves. It was General Patton, I believe, who said: "War is hell". The next thing to war which is hell are sanctions. Sanctions hurt people and they hurt the most vulnerable.
When the United Nations first introduced its sanctions, it exempted medical supplies and food under resolution 661. It then had to amend that, because when it found out that food and medical supplies were exempted from the sanctions, the aggressor nation, in this case Saddam Hussein, abused it and used those supplies for military purposes. The Security Council adopted resolution 666 to determine whether humanitarian circumstances existed that would warrant the sale of medical supplies or food to Iraq.
The history of despots is that they will take the humanitarianism we extend to them and abuse it and use it to the furtherance of their military cause. Therefore, I say that the bill is already flexible enough to give judgment to Canada and all the other members of the multilateral organization to exercise the flexibility that the member asked for and that all of us want.
None of us want to see the disadvantaged suffer, the children with napalm bums and every other kind of tragic aspect of war which they experience. We want to minimize that in every way we can. The bill allows that kind of flexibility already.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, with leave, if I might just raise a brief question with the parliamentary secretary on this point?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is there unanimous consent to give the member the opportunity to raise a question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I want to take this opportunity at report stage, in light of what the parliamentary secretary has stated, to ask him specifically, in order to apply the principle that he has enunciated with respect to protection of vulnerable children, particularly in the case of food stuffs and medicines, if he could indicate what the response is of the Ministry of External Affairs to the specific proposal which has been put forward by Dr. Eric
Hoskins with respect to the release of $2 million in Iraqi assets. It would permit the direct acquisition of food and medicines that would be channelled through humanitarian agencies which would ensure that it goes directly to those children, to those people who are the most vulnerable in these circumstances and would, in no way, as the parliamentary secretary knows, benefit the regime in power at this time?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the circumstances now are different from the time when we were "in a state of war". It was a legitimate request on the part of the doctor. As I pointed out in committee, Canada has already dedicated, I think, $23 million for food and medical supplies to the aid of the vulnerable in Iraq. The request is for $2 million. I believe the doctor is in discussions with the officials at external affairs, but I do not think it has been finally determined yet what they plan to do.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion negatived.


Lloyd Axworthy: That Bill C-53 be amended in clause 4 by adding immediately after line 38 at page 2, the following:
(2) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as preventing a person who is awaiting final determination under the Immigration Act as to whether the person is a refugee within the meaning of the United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees, from being considered ordinarily resident in Canada for the purpose of this Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment deals with the very crucial question of refugees. It is a matter that we examined quite thoroughly during the committee stage, where representation was made that there are a number of individuals who come into Canada and apply for
May 5, 1992

refugee status who could be affected by the blanket provisions of this bill if they were nationals of the country in which sanctions were being imposed. They could immediately have their own meagre or not so meagre properties frozen or, in fact, taken over. The wording of the motion itself says "only those ordinarily resident in Canada".
We proposed amendments which would exempt those who were in the refugee stream. Concern was expressed at the time that this could give rise to abuse, that for those who wanted to exploit the situation they could immediately rush off to their local office and claim to be a refugee and, therefore, find themselves in a position to evade the conditions of the bill.
What this clause does is answer that concern. We have looked at the wording very carefully and I think it is important to read it out. It says: "For greater certainty, nothing in this act shall be interpreted as preventing a person who is awaiting final determination under the Immigration Act as to whether the person is a refugee within the meaning of the United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees, from being considered ordinarily resident in Canada". That would clearly prohibit or restrict instant refugee claimants. The wording says "is awaiting final determination under the Immigration Act". Therefore it would be impossible for anyone to abuse the system by rushing into line.
I trust that this would be sufficient wording to satisfy the government's expressed concern on the committee that it would not be a loophole for abuse, but in fact would protect the rights of refugee claimants.
I point out that we are obliged under the refugee convention to protect those rights, including the rights of property. I believe sincerely that this amendment would meet both those objectives. It would ensure that those rights are protected and at the same time it would prevent any abuse of the system.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important amendment. It does not in any way require that those who are seeking refugee status must, in fact, be considered as ordinarily resident under the provisions of clause 4. All it does is give effect to an undertaking which was made by the
Government Orders
parliamentary secretary already, which is that in fact the legislation would be left open to judicial interpretation to in fact permit the possibility that in circumstances, particularly in which a refugee claimant has been resident in Canada for in some cases months or years and where the courts might interpret that that person is in fact ordinarily resident in Canada, that they should not be subject to the provisions with respect to the search and seizure of their assets in Canada.
We have been told that that is the intent of the bill. I recognize that this amendment was not before the committee, but I believe that what it does do is give effect to the intent both as stated by the parliamentary secretary and, as the parliamentary secretary will recall, as stated by the witnesses from the department who appeared before the committee.
I think it is important to make it clear that the wording simply states that nothing in the act will prevent a refugee claimant waiting final determination from being considered ordinarily resident. I think it is very important that this be adopted. It in no way diminishes the jurisdiction or the discretion of the courts in making that final determination.
It simply makes it clear that as the Canadian Council on Refugees eloquently argued in their submission to the committee, we should not close the door in all circumstances to those genuine refugee claimants who may wish to in fact be protected from the provisions with respect to sanctions.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. The government proposed wording that said: "a national of that foreign state who does not ordinarily reside in Canada". The members of the committee objected to that, that it was far too restrictive and that they would like to have an opportunity for refugee claimants and convention refugees to be considered as an exception. We were prepared to go along with that and therefore drafted an amendment something like this to satisfy that kind of request.
This morning when we met there was discussion about this provision which said that probably is more restrictive than the government's original wording. It was not only government members saying that, I might add.

May 5, 1992
Private Members' Business
I thought that there was a general understanding at this morning's committee that the original wording of the government amendment was probably more generous than this kind of amendment. That was the conclusion that I came to, as to what both sides of the committee had come to agree upon. Therefore, it is not unusual that I would prefer the original government wording. If it is as we understood this morning in committee, that the original government wording was more generous than the one that creates the exception of the convention refugee, then I would opt for the original government wording since that has the intent of what this amendment is supposed to do already.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion is negatived on division.
I want to check to see if the House gives unanimous consent to consider the last amendment. Is there unanimous consent?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in making your job easier. In light of the parliamentary secretary's last remarks, I will be withdrawing the last amendment.


Benno Friesen: I certainly do not want to frustrate the hon. member from Winnipeg who has his private member's hour now. Since we have an emergency debate I believe tonight at eight o'clock and we would finish the Adjournment Debate around seven o'clock, I wonder if there would be a disposition to do third reading at seven o'clock. There was an agreement among the parties that we would complete the measure today and that would meet our expectations then.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to accommodate the parliamentary secretary, but for family reasons I simply cannot. I have to look after my child. I cannot do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to consider the last amendment?


Benno Friesen: Withdraw it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We withdraw the amendment.


Hon. Charles Mayer (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5.20 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
I may remind hon. members that this debate will last for one hour, until 6.20 p.m.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Rey D. Pagtakhan: That this House demonstrate its desire to see Canada as a world leader in the field of medical and pharmaceutical technology by urging the Minister of National Health and Welfare to reinstate funding to the Health Protection Branch test facilities for new drugs and medical devices.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my private motion has been selected for debate today. Its timeliness is evident as we hear and read the stories of patients dying while waiting for new drugs that wait and wait for approval. It is timely as well as we hear of Canadian pharmaceutical industries struggling to compete globally-
May 5, 1992

This motion is aimed at prompting this government to put more staff and money into the testing of devices and drugs, getting them on to the market more quickly and into the hands of patients.
Let me begin with the Health Protection Branch drug approval process. According to the Auditor General in his 1987 report:
There is growing evidence that Canada's system of drug submission review is not performing in an efficient and timely manner. The response time for new drug submission significantly exceeds the 120-day limit prescribed in the regulations.
The review time for new drug submissions is increasing at a significant rate. The review times for other types of submissions are also increasing. Coincident with the increase in the length of time for review, there has been a sharp increase in the accumulated backlog. In 1982, there were 243 drug submissions awaiting HPB review. In 1986, there were 1,112.
In 19921 do not know because no information could be provided by the office of the minister of health.
The audit summarized that the cost of HPB inefficiency was huge. Canadians did not have timely access to new drugs. There was bad blood between industry and government, and Canada suffered in the global economy because we could not get our drugs to market quickly.
It is now May 1992, five years later. What has changed? Nothing. Industry and government are still duelling. Drugs, devices and vaccines wait indefinitely for approval. Our economy sits in the comer waiting to be asked to dance by the pharmaceutical industry.
Something is very wrong at the Health Protection Branch. It is a directorate with a siege mentality, fearful and paranoid, and with good reason. The directorate has few friends in this country. It must continually watch its back as those inside try to protect their jobs and their ministers. It is not a healthy environment. It is not an environment that we can afford to maintain.
The paranoia at HPB is so high that I was refused a briefing on its activities recently. Initially there was a promise but apparently when the request was formally considered at the highest bureaucratic level, permission was denied. One wonders why. Was the Health Production Branch afraid to be probed? Fortunately I have been
Private Members' Business
able to access other sources, including critics of the system, of which there are many.
I thank the HPB personnel who spoke off the record, the companies that co-operated and the journalists who also get no co-operation from health and welfare for their insight.
The picture they paint of the drug approval process is one coloured by bad policy and lack of leadership. This becomes apparent in any dealings with the bureau, even for something as innocent as gaining information for my debate today.
My staff was given the runaround for many days by health protection officials, leaving them angiy and frustrated, not unlike the companies that have submissions gathering dust in HPB offices.
My staff found every avenue blocked, every access to information denied. Then finally late last week came the final slap in the face. An assistant to the director general of the drugs directorate said the reason my office could not be given a briefing was because HPB officials and staff were too busy working on today's response for the minister. No doubt the response will be a glorious picture of the HPB drug approval process.
HPB is a directorate with fortress mentality, focused on protectionism. Protecting the ministers and saving their own jobs is key, not reform of the system and efficiency. While my staff was stalled for days, Canadian drug companies had been stalled for years. Canadian consumers are being prevented from getting access to new medications as quickly as possible. In some cases, only strong public pressure has been able to light a fire under reviewers, getting important drugs to very ill people.
The minister knows this and so did his predecessor, and his predecessor's predecessor. Allow me to quote from a new release of the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, then minister of health on July 14, 1988. I quote:
Health and Welfare Minister Jake Epp today announced plans to
streamline the approval of new drugs and improve management of
the government's drug review process. An additional 50 person-

May 5, 1992
Private Members' Business
years and $13.6 million have been allocated to the drug review program for the current fiscal year.
We have set a target of 20 per cent increase in efficiency over the next three years, and I expect that the current backlog of some 1,000 new drug submissions now in the system will be eliminated in that time.
Well, the minister was wrong. The backlog was not eliminated. The drug approval process is jammed with submissions. Now, with the crisis over breast implants, approval of medical devices is also being delayed. Vaccines too are not immune to the slowdown at HPB.
The situation is further complicated by protectionism. Reviewers are suspected of delaying approvals in hopes that drugs will come on the market in other countries first. Being a follower may well be the safer position to play, especially if your job depends on protecting your boss, but that is lack of leadership.
HPB has a mandate to protect the safety of Canadians. In fact, the drug review process was bom out of the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.
I believe public safety is paramount in drug approval. I believe safety first should be demanded of the HPB, but I do not believe public safety should be used as a screen to hide inefficiency or cowardice on the part of HPB leaders.
Reviewers are hired to make a decision based on the data available. They should be tops in their field, well versed in clinical practice and research. They should be an authority on drugs, devices, and biologies. That is why they have been hired. They do a very important job and the onus is on them to do it well and without delay. Delays cost lives, jobs, and money.
Reviewers do not run HPB. They are not responsible for the lack of leadership in the directorate over the past decade. They do not hold the party strings either. Let me continue from Mr. Epp's press release of 1988: "For a number of years Canada like most other countries in the western world has had difficulties keeping up with the increasing number of new drug submissions within regulatory timeframes". This was recognized by the Eastman commission of 1984, the ministerial task force on program review, and in the 1987 Auditor General's report I earlier alluded to.
In January 1987 a government, industry, private working group headed by Mr. Kenneth Stein was formed to
find ways of clearing the backlog of new drugs awaiting review and recommend ways to promote timely access to drugs without lowering Canada's high standards for drug assessment.
Allow me at this juncture to tell my colleagues in this House of the death of a cystic fibrosis patient in Winnipeg just last February while awaiting notice of compliance for a new drug that has been shown in the United States to be beneficial. Just a week ago I got another call again from a patient with cystic fibrosis now severely ill in the hospital asking why this same drug has not yet been released.
The Stein report sat on the shelf unnoticed by government until the Auditor General's report jolted the minister into action. It is my feeling that these studies are placebos for the pharmaceutical industry, shortcir-cuting criticism.
Recently the government commissioned yet another study, this time by the very well respected Dr. Denis Gagnon, vice-rector of research at the University of Laval. The mandate of Dr. Gagnon is to provide recommendations that will "continue to ensure the safety, efficacy and quality of drugs, while at the same time ensuring the timely availability to Canadians and minimizing the regulatory burden".
I look forward to this report which will be completed in June. Yet still I remain skeptical. What assurances do we have that the minister will breathe life into the recommendations? What assurances do we have the HPB approval process will become more than a Canadian centre for risk avoidance?
I hope the minister will give his word today, here in the House of Commons, that the Gagnon report will not die in obscurity when presented. I hope the minister will not rely solely on a carefully prepared text from his apprehensive personnel at HPB. I want to hear him say he will clean out the cobwebs at the Health Protection Branch.
The cobwebs loom large. Over three years have passed since Mr. Epp leased the 50 additional person-years. Yet today the backlog is reputedly three years deep, worse than ever before. Granted, the HPB receives more submissions, but there was not an adequate reworking of the system to make it more efficient. It is the business of companies to turn out products. It is HPB's business to approve them, or to disapprove them, but not to hold them in limbo.
May 5, 1992

I have heard it takes HPB researchers a year and a half to open a file on a new applicant and begin review. Full product approval often takes three years. Some drag on longer. Some, still, are caught in the system indefinitely. Not good news for companies that may have invested $150 million in a new drug.
Recently our Prime Minister visited the opening of a Merrick Frostt research facility in Montreal, no doubt happy for the photo opportunity. Meanwhile, the company's drug submissions may be gathering dust along with hundreds of others in offices of health and welfare.
At the same time an ocean away, in England, this same approval process takes place in six months to a year. I put this question through you Mr. Speaker. If you were a pharmaceutical company chief executive officer, where would you take your drugs for approval? I hope the HPB is watching the United Kingdom. The rest of the world surely is.
Detractors might argue that the Canadian drug approval model guarantees safety. I believe efficiency and safety can go hand in hand. Britain is proof. There is no proof that the safety of British citizens is being jeopardized because of quick approval.
Safety and efficacy are independent criteria in drug approval, yet both can be accommodated. With improved efficiency will come quicker approval without sacrificing safety. Hopefully we will be better able to help Canadians and the people of the world suffering from life-threatening illnesses and diseases.
One of the key problems at HPB is that there are too many pockets of air in the review process, too much down time, too few reviewers. Hire the people you need. Contract out when necessary. Hire a panel of clinical experts to give the final nod. Seek international collaboration, but please clean up the review process.
My contacts have painted a rather unflattering portrait of the health and welfare drug review process. I was told reviewers work very, very hard, to the detriment of safety. On the other hand, I was told they take time away from files to pursue some other courses.
I was told they are underpaid and terrified of screw-ups that could embarrass the minister. I was told they are underskilled and stuck in a 1960s review process. I was
Private Members' Business
told better researchers and more of them are needed. I was even told that the drug approval process is intentionally bogged down by staff who need to justify their existence, that for them the backlog is like a government sponsored Registered Retirement Savings Plan.
I do not think it is fair, however, to blame the backlog at HPB on the reviewers. The blame should lie squarely on the shoulders of the ministers and the directors who have the power to make changes.
I believe there can be a balance between business and safety, yet health and welfare has tipped that balance so far that it has become protectionism. There is a mountain of difference between safety and protectionism.
It is protectionism of the department and the department's ministers more than protection of the Canadian public. This slowness of approval is hurting Canada and it is handicapping our pharmaceutical industry.
One health protection employee said he fields calls from irate company executives who say: "We came here from the States because your government promised things would be better. Then why has our product been in the system for two and a half years?"
Another company spokesperson, whose work involves life-saving vaccines, said: "What has happened at HPB is that over time resources have been allowed to dwindle. We have no problem with the level of expertise that is there, but we need more. We need more experts and more capabilities".
I have heard industry say: "How can we compete when we cannot even get our own products licensed? This is a cut-throat business. If we cannot get approval in the country that developed the vaccine or drug, it does not look good when we try to market it internationally".
Global Tek Company of Vancouver is an example of trying to develop a diagnostic test kit for meningitis. Until now, that has not come to full fruition because of problems with the HPB. The minister should be held responsible for this.
Other companies say: "It is frustrating when regulating organizations cannot keep pace with development". They point to an almost anti-drug, anti-industry feeling at health and welfare. I quote from one source: "Just because there is a whole host of drugs on the market does not mean they are the best drugs. We need new and

May 5, 1992
Private Members' Business
better drugs, drugs with fewer side effects, drugs that work more quickly.
I will end by again calling on the minister to clean up the regulatory review process and the Health Protection Branch. Put more money into the system and make it more efficient. Help Canada to pull ahead on the world stage, a country that cleverly can do more with less. How many studies do you need to tell you what you already know? The system needs a complete overhaul. Can you do what your predecessors did not do before you, I ask the minister? Can the minister bring the Health Protection Branch into the 21st century?
I hope this motion will prompt this government, this minister, to do what has to be done for Canada to lead in the biotechnology field in the world.


Mrs. Sparrow:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House a debate on
the adjournment motion be held immediately following the time
provided for Private Members' Business, and
That the motion be deemed withdrawn at the end of such debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa-Vani-er-Bill C-55; the hon. member for London East-The Budget; the hon. member for Mount Royal-Book Publishing Industry.
I apologize. The late show will be at 6.20 p.m.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today and to respond to the hon. member's motion.
I am certain that all members of the House want to see Canada become a world leader in the field of medical and pharmaceutical technology. I think it is important to emphasize that the laboratories of the bureau of drug research do not have any direct responsibility for the development of new drugs. Responsibilities for the pharmaceutical and medical device development lie with the industries and the government is taking the necessary steps to encourage research and development in Canada.
Research conducted in the Health Protection Branch is designed to support the scientific basis for the regulatory decision-making. Authorization for the marketing of new drugs and medical devices is contingent upon the branch receiving acceptable evidence of product safety, quality and efficacy.
The branch itself is not responsible for generating the data but is charged with the responsibility of having sufficient expertise available to make sound judgments on the submissions which it receives.
If the branch judges the new drug to be safe and effective then the manufacturer is authorized to market it. Accordingly the branch's research is limited to studies on the safety of medical devices and investigations needed to ensure that the medicines available to Canadians are safe and effective. In other words, the research provides the background knowledge needed to support the review process.
The department continues to evaluate the safety, quality and efficacy of pharmaceuticals. No manufacturer can market a new product without obtaining a notice of compliance or a drug identification number from the drugs directorate. A priority of the branch is in fact to eliminate the backlog in the review of submissions from manufacturers who wish to market new products.
The department also has vigorous inspection, enforcement and adverse reaction reporting programs in place. It is also conducting studies into the best means of identifying adverse reactions and making their proper attribution based on epidemiology and appropriate laboratory work. These programs are meant to ensure the continuing quality of drug products and medical devices
May 5, 1992

and to protect the public against problems that may only surface once the product is marketed and used by more patients than could possibly be included in the pre-marketing clinical tests.
The Bureau of Drug Research has a team of chemists, toxicologists, pharmacologists and pharmacists able to tackle virtually any problem pertaining to pharmaceutical quality.
It is also important to remember the government has introduced a number of measures designed to encourage the development of Canada's research-based communities including the health care industry. Among these are the Medical Research Council's University-Industry Program, a similar program established by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council, the National Research Council Industrial Research Assistance Program, the establishment of a number of networks among the national Centres of Excellence and special funding provided through the National Biotechnology Strategy.
Government research laboratories are eligible to receive funding through the National Biotechnology Strategy and the department has received support targeted toward enhancing its laboratory capability, that is commensurate with the developing biotechnology industrial capacity. Government laboratories may also be associated with the research expertise resident in the academic-industrial networks of excellence and branch laboratories are participating in certain networks.
Further, the matching funds policy of the Medical Research Council provides for the generation of funds for research that match the funds derived from the industry. The funding available under this policy has been integrated into the base budget of the council. Similar action has been taken with respect to the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council. The matching funds university-industry programs are under review led by the Medical Research Council. These policies have done much to promote pharmaceutical research and development in Canada.
The government has endorsed multilateral trade proposals to strengthen patent protection for pharmaceuticals. Stronger patent protection greatly improves the
Private Members' Business
climate for investing in pharmaceutical research and development and the atmosphere in which innovation can take place.
Canada's international competitiveness in attracting new investment to the health care industry will be enhanced. Changes to the current patent protection regime reflect three very important objectives. They are as follows: First, the availability of more and better medicines and treatments for the diseases that affect Canadians; second, more research and development to occur in Canada; and third, the provision of medicines at reasonable prices for Canadians.
In conclusion, the scientific staff of the Health Protection Branch serves on various committees of the granting councils such as the MRC and the NSERC and support the NRC's IRAP program. There are numerous liaisons with the academic community and various joint projects with universities. The branch is able to maintain a high level of the research expertise through these contacts and its in-house programs.
Laboratory programs of the Health Protection Branch are continuously reviewed to ensure that they are resilient and adaptable to the challenges of a rapidly advancing health care frontier. The capacity of the Bureau of Drug Research continues to be strong and broadly based. High-class laboratory support continues to be provided to the Health Protection Branch in priority areas.
In conclusion, while the intent of the motion is a good one and one can understand that, the means are not acceptable at this time.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands and myself will be splitting our 10-minute time.
Motion 538 is being debated just as the external review of the Canadian drug approval system or process is scheduled for completion in June. Therefore this debate is very timely. Dr. Gagnon of Laval has been asked to report on the key issues respecting drug approval with special emphasis on resources required in testing for Canada, the possible international harmonization of testing rules and the privatization of the process.

May 5, 1992
Private Members' Business
The House should be aware that the review is really being prompted by cuts in budget to Health and Welfare. Despite the government's continual insistence that safety will not be compromised, the present situation dictates that risks will increase as the government attempts to pass off privatization as the answer to a situation that is created through budget cuts.
Let us look at the budget for the Health Protection Branch in the last three years. In 1990-91 it was $65.6 million and had 734 person-years. This year it has been reduced to $64.4 million and 715 person-years, a reduction of 19 person-years. In effect, the branch has gone backwards with regard to funding and personnel for dealing with drug approvals for the past three years. No wonder such antagonists as the generic drug manufacturers and the brand name manufacturers agree that a quicker method for approval must be found.
There is little doubt that Professor Gagnon is expected to arrive at the obviously preferred solution of privatization. Even if he does not, the present fiscal climate will dictate it. Indeed outside persons are playing a role already in drug approval and it certainly will be expanded by this government.
Before we privatize the testing system, should we not be aware of the risks? In making inquiries about the testing of pharmaceuticals I have learned there is a simple equation. If clinical tests of drug effectiveness are performed in faster time, less data will result. That means if tests are conducted with hundreds of humans, the effects that occur in one in one thousand will not be detected and there are going to be difficulties.
Perhaps the best known case is thalidomide. Thalidomide was a typical modem minor therapeutic drug produced by major drug manufacturers, which was approved in some countries but not in others. Once these tragedies occur they are irreversible. Given the differences in liability law, it has meant a very unequal life for the children who have been affected.
There are other much more recent cases where we have had controversial drags. In the last few months concerns about Prozac and Halcion have been raised. We have also had medical devices with continued problems, such as the Meme breast implant. These situations still exist. The question is whether we want more or less of
them. The answer is that we will get more if we privatize the approval process.
There are other risks in the privatized system. In Canada we have seen the scandals of testing done in the 1980s by Industrial Bio-Test, a U.S. firm. In seeking approval for products it had been commissioned to test, IBT simply falsified test results. These tests were for agricultural chemicals and Agriculture Canada had to spend much valuable time and effort to confirm whether the material it received was true.
The same commercial pressure will apply to a privatized system for drugs. Each additional month of marketing time means millions in sales, given the kind of high-priced drug promotion that goes on in Canada today. Without professionally disinterested public servants being central to the process, the pressure for cheating could be enormous, particularly when a rival drug in a similar stage is seeking approval.
The drug testing changes can be seen in the same light as the changes we have seen in the drug protection patent laws. The U.S. government and U.S. multinationals have unilaterally forced us to change our generic drug laws. Already the government has said it will change the patent protection for brand drugs from 10 to 17 years. It is quite clear that is not what Canadians either want or deserve as a public policy from this government. It is what the multinational drug companies want, and that is what we will get from this government.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I just want to begin by thanking my colleague from Surrey North for graciously allowing me to share his time, as he is the person in the New Democratic Party responsible for health issues.
The purpose of my intervention tonight is to talk about a case that really highlights what the Health Protection Branch does for Canadians.
I would like to speak to one aspect of this bill, namely the importance of access to new drugs and the continued protection for people relying on these drugs for their very survival.
Until last summer I was unaware of the Emergency Drug Release Program, which is part of the Health Protection Branch. Since that time I have on several occasions made use of the excellent service it provides in
May 5, 1992

the release of new drugs or those drugs only available in other countries.
The case of one of my constituents drew my attention to this. He was a grand mal epileptic who had finally found a drug to control his seizures with the assistance of his physician. When he was faced with the devastating withdrawal of this drug, it was brought to my attention. Without this drug he would be unable to work. He would be forced into some form of dependency, and would experience a serious loss of personal freedom and dignity most of us would find hard to accept.
The company that produced the drug had withdrawn the drug from the market for unknown financial reasons. The personal devastation their decision would have on this young man demanded a response. This case introduced me to the Emergency Drug Release Program.
In partnership with one of the program doctors, I was able to secure a year's supply of the drug my constituent required. A year bought him the time to gradually switch to another combination of drugs with the same essential ingredients. Unfortunately these drugs must be imported as they are currently unavailable in Canada.
Since then, on subsequent occasions I have again made use of this excellent program to secure new experimental drugs for cancer patients.
However, the fact that we must use these sorts of programs at all worries me. What is holding back our own approval process, preventing Canadian companies from producing drugs so urgently needed by our own people?
I would like to join my colleagues in this House and support their call against the privatization of testing facilities and to reinstate adequate funding to one of Canada's outstanding federal government departments, the Health Protection Branch of National Health and Welfare.
As I know from personal experience, its work is vital. Canadians would only benefit from their expertise in drug approval.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate.
Private Members' Business
It is a very special occasion for me because it marks the first anniversary of the new addition to the Corbett family, a grandson, my first grandchild today. He was bom in Montreal, Quebec, and he is the Corbetts' newest Canadian.
The motion that we are concerned with today is the decision to close the drugs directorate's laboratory activities in the Natural Products Section and Drug Residue Section of the Bureau of Drug Research, Health Protection Branch.
A stringent review of the priorities within the drugs program was conducted immediately following the budget of February 1991 in reaching the decision. I can tell you that the reduction in laboratory work is a reflection of limited available resources and not of the quality or intrinsic importance of the studies that have been conducted in these areas.
It is the responsibility of pharmaceutical manufacturers and the medical device industry to invent new products for the Canadian market and the government encourages industrial R and D. The Health Protection Branch's role is to review the information provided by the industry.
The government took action in 1987 in support of enhanced pharmaceutical research and development in Canada when changes were made to the Patent Act. Bill C-22 granted drug patent holders a period of market exclusivity of seven years against manufacturing in Canada and 10 years against importation. In response, the innovative pharmaceutical industry made a public commitment to increase its R and D expenditures as a percentage of sales to 8 per cent by 1991 and to 10 per cent by the end of 1996 from the then existing level of 4.9 per cent. This commitment represented new spending on pharmaceutical R and D totalling $1.4 billion over the 10 year period.
I think it also appropriate at this point to mention that not only do the pharmaceutical companies that are represented by this group represent a commitment to Canada's R and D research, but as well, the generic industry that is well represented in this country and contributes handsomely to the pharmaceutical industry in the nation contributes significantly to employment levels and to the pharmaceutical prestige that this country has in the international community. We should

Private Members' Business
make every reference and opportunity to encourage those people as well.
As reported by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, total R and D expenditures by pharmaceutical patent holders increased from $165.7 million in 1988 to $281.3 million in 1990. The R and D to sales ratio rose from approximately 6 per cent to approximately 9 per cent in this period. According to data from the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association, basic research increased to a total of $70.1 million in 1990 from $30.3 million in 1988. Government policies to enhance intellectual property rights in this area have resulted in the pharmaceutical industry becoming a major source of total research funding in the health field.
The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada established its Health Research Foundation which broadly covers the various disciplines involved in research in pharmaceutical therapy in the late 1980s. Most of the foundation's awards are matched by the Medical Research Council through the university-industry program.
The government took steps in 1988 to enhance health research in Canada with the introduction of the Medical Research Council University-Industry Program. Since the inception of the program, a total of $44.4 million has been provided, of which industry provided 58 per cent and the government, through the MRC, 42 per cent. The average value of the awards has been about $400,000. More than 90 per cent of the industrial participants in these programs are pharmaceutical companies, with the remainder mostly medical device companies and a few computer companies.
Government initiatives toward enhancing health research in Canada have been successful and productive. The mandate of the Health Protection Branch, while encouraging the development of a first class industry and academic research community in Canada, is primarily directed toward the review of information provided by manufacturers who wish to introduce products on to the market. To this end it conducts in-house research in support of product review in those areas perceived to be of the greatest urgency and priority.
The drug review program is under external assessment at the present time and a report is expected in the next
few months. Matters under consideration include the nature of product review and how reviews can be more expeditiously conducted while maintaining assurance of the protection of the Canadian public. Comparisons will be made of the review and supporting research infrastructure as it exists in Canada with the counterpart systems in place in comparable jurisdictions in the EEC and the U.S.A.
The issues being deliberated by the committee also include various regulatory options and program resourcing. The department will await the tabling of the final reports before embarking on any strategic planning of resources for the medical devices program and drug review program.
The department's approach continues to be to maintain a strong and adaptable component of laboratoiy research in support of health protection programs in Canada. The scientific capacity of the Bureau of Drug Research continues to be strong and flexible. There is a broad base of expertise with built-in adaptable laboratory capability.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to congratulate the member for Winnipeg North who has raised this important issue in the House of Commons. I think it demonstrates how members who have knowledge of a subject and who are hard working can press this system in an important way to make changes that are beneficial for all Canadians.
The essence of this bill is that without sacrificing one iota of safety, and safety must be paramount, drugs can and must be brought to the benefit of Canadian consumers much more quickly than at present.
The bureaucracy is bogging down the process and denying to patients in Canada in many cases, as cited by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North, the benefit of those new drugs. It is worth the investment he has asked for.
I wish to touch on a related issue. It deals with another way in which Canadians are impeded from getting the type of medical treatment they deserve. I bring to this House once again the example of Global Tek, a Vancouver corporation which in 1990 entered into a contract with the National Research Council. It was an IRAP contract
May 5, 1992

which involved the sharing of costs for the development of a new medical test for meningitis.
Under this contract it was specified by the National Research Council that the government's representative would be a Dr. Brodeur who works in the Health and Welfare laboratories here in Ottawa. Dr. Brodeur is a well recognized authority in the world of medicine for having developed certain types of antibodies in related areas.
The company, Global Tek, spent $250,000 and the government under its IRAP put up matching funds of $250,000. It would have paid even more but the taxpayer was able to keep these expenses down. Three Global Tek employees worked for considerable time in this Health and Welfare laboratory and developed a type of antibody which was going to be effective for the test they had in mind.
During the period that they worked together, the three employees in the Health and Welfare laboratory, Dr. Brodeur was the over-all person in charge, but he had very few contacts with those three employees.
The advice of another person, Dr. Hamel from Health and Welfare, was sought occasionally on procedures in the laboratory. Where is this? Where is that? In essence, these three individuals were the ones responsible for the research and for all of the work.
The dispute is as follows. A discovery was made of an antibody. Global Tek wants to go into commercial production of a test. The government is saying that it owns the antibody.
Let us look at the facts. Everyone agrees that Dr. Brodeur discovered some five years ago an antibody against Hemothilis meningitis. That is true, this is accepted by Global Tek.
During the time these three employees worked under the loose supervision of Dr. Brodeur, they developed two other antibodies. The one in question is a Neisseria meningitis antibody. It was developed by those three people.
The government is saying it owns that Neisseria meningitis antibody. It will not give it to the private sector firm, unless it is under licence and the private sector firm admits that the government owns it.
Private Members' Business
This was a project that was brought to the public sector by a private sector firm. They were the people who matched the funds. Just because it was carried out in a government laboratory does not mean in law or in fact the government owns it.
What a terrible precedent to set if our top medical researchers go to the government to get matching funds under IRAP, an excellent program which incidentally is being gutted by this government. They go to the government and say that they want to carry out this research in a fundamental area. They do it. They live up to their obligations. Something is discovered and the government keeps it. Are any other firms going to spend their money and their time going into joint public sector private sector programs, be it in medical research or any other area of endeavour if the government gives the slightest indication that it is going to steal the results of that research?
Does this mean every joint program undertaken belongs to the government laboratory in which it was done even when NRC specified it had to be done in that particular facility under the direction of Dr. Brodeur? It sets a terrible precedent for the co-operative types of efforts we need between the private and public sectors in Canada to bring new inventions to market.
I for one am incredulous that the government would not say yes it is yours, it is specified in section 6, appendix B of the contract with the NRC that every discovery belongs to Global Tek. It is clear in law that the results of that research are to be carried out and be the property and benefit of the private sector corporation.
The government's published guidelines on this issue state it wants to encourage transfer of the ownership from the government to the private sector firms. Why? It is because the government is not in a position to commercially exploit these goods.
It is the private sector initiatives which come forward and I welcome the help of the public sector in these areas. We have been calling for more of it. It is the private sector firm which has the initiative, which has the idea, which brings its own expertise tapped on to by the government that is going to then be able to build the test out of these antibodies and commercialize this test for Neisseria meningitis around the world.
Unfortunately we felt that we had to raise this issue in the public forum. It should never have come to this. The government should have followed its guidelines. It should have followed the clear contractual obligations

May 5, 1992
Private Members' Business
that it had undertaken to ensure that the results of all these discoveries that took place belonged to the company. This matter has been discussed for some time now with the minister for science and technology. He made
inquiries.
National Health and Welfare is saying: "Yes, it was discovered in our laboratory and yes, there is a contract. Yes, it was under this contract that the work was done, but really the invention is ours because it was done in our laboratory and because the nominal head of the project, who only offered consultation advice on a very limited basis was not there all the time doing the work. It was not his idea to do it, originally. It was a government official".
That is not right. It is not proper. It is wrong in law. It sets a terrible precedent. It is the type of precedent that is retarding the bringing to market of this test for meningitis. Why should this company go ahead and license its own discovery from the government when it owns it in law and in fact?
We encourage the minister of health to look into this immediately, to work to ensure that this is commercially exploited. We encourage him as well to accept the recommendations of my learned friend and colleague from Winnipeg North who has put before this House a bill which is designed to do nothing but enhance the health opportunities for all Canadians, for which we all commend him.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that the health protection branch is certainly not afraid of being probed. In fact it is having certain areas reviewed today. That of course is absolutely right and should be ongoing.
I want to say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North has made some very strong statements here in the House tonight. I believe that some, if not all, of these allegations are unfounded and really have to be addressed.
The first item I noted is that the member said he had been refused a briefing, he had been refused information from the Department of National Health and Welfare.
This just is not so.
In fact, I went right out and spoke to officials from the department while my colleague was speaking. They have no knowledge whatsoever of a refusal to provide information or to provide briefings from the department. I really have to challenge my colleague on that particular statement he made in the House.
I am certainly going to get in touch with him and I am going to ask him-


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary is trying to impugn my integrity. I will produce evidence and witnesses to support the statements I made in this House.
The parliamentary secretary cannot hide and protect the minister and his department and in so doing impugn my integrity. If she is prepared to do that, she can rise on a question of privilege and then we will debate the question of privilege.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I was going to continue and say that I will be in touch with the member for Winnipeg North to get the pertinent facts as he revealed them. I want to say to him that the department makes every effort to accommodate MPs on their requests and briefings. I will look into everything that he has said tonight.
With regard to another thing I think I heard him say, he was quoting from a speech that the hon. Jake Epp made when he was Minister of National Health and Welfare. We do have a publication entitled: "Three Years Progress" which points out that we have markedly reduced the backlog for new drugs.
We approved the anti-AIDS drug, the DDI, in a record seven months. We did that in a joint review with the United States FDA. Also we have had 140 contracts for outside review. That is called contracting out. I think the member was also advocating this and I commend him. We are doing that.
We have published over 20 guidelines to make our processes for drug approval very understandable and very open. Indeed they should be. We have pushed international harmonization of our regulatory requirements.
May 5, 1992

I would be pleased to provide this information by noon tomorrow to the hon. member. As I said, I will be in touch with him to make sure that I get the specific details so I can look into the matter. No member of Parliament should be refused a briefing by any department.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on March 16, 1992,1 asked the President of the Treasury Board whether he intended to withdraw clauses of Bill C-55 that allowed the government not to pay premiums by refusing to pay the employer's contributions to match the employee's or to change and even reduce the interest rate on pension funds without consultation.
According to some interpretations of Bill C-55, the government could deindex a pension, reduce pension benefits and radically alter pension funding through regulation instead of legislation.
The minister answered me in the House that his government had no intention of doing so and he even went so far as to say that Bill C-55 contained no such measure. Nevertheless, when the Comptroller General of Canada appeared before the Legislative Committee on Bill C-55 the next day, he himself admitted that it would be possible to change pension plans without passing or amending a law. He then promised to seek a legal opinion on it.
On April 15, 1992, one month later, the President of the Treasury Board issued a press release in which he said that he was sorry that statements by the Federal Superannuates National Association on the security of
Adjournment
pensions, which were later supported by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, could have aroused unnecessary fears among some Public Service and Canadian Forces pensioners. He added that a thorough review showed that the powers in section 71 of the proposed law would not allow changing or abolishing acquired rights, including pension indexation.
He continued, and this is the interesting part, by saying that nevertheless, in order to reassure federal retirees and active public servants, he had written to the chairman of the parliamentary committee studying Bill C-55 to inform it that the government intended to propose an amendment that would explicitly limit the scope of the regulatory powers in that respect.
In a letter that he sent to the chairman of the legislative committee on Bill C-55, the President of the Treasury Board himself said that the proposed amendment would specify that only the changes affecting pension indexing would be set forth in legislation.
That is what we were asking, that is what we wanted, that is what we were promised and that is what we wanted to see in Bill C-55. You will agree with me that it is quite curious that even though he pleads not guilty, the President of the Treasury Board says that he is prepared to carry out the sentence and correct the wording of the bill.
At the same time, I am glad to see this change in position as a result of the many concerns expressed by the various groups that appeared before the parliamentary committee, the unions and members of this House who care about the well-being of past and present employees of the Government of Canada.
I am also pleased that the President of the Treasury Board has made a commitment to consult all concerned before making any decision whatever on pension indexing and pension plan management.
This experience shows us that a careful review in committee can be constructive. The government, perhaps inadvertently, had submitted a bill that we thought contained an interpretation that was not so clear. To prevent unclear legislation from being passed in this Parliament, we did what the opposition is supposed to do and asked the government to explain. Now that the government has done so, I think Hansard will show that we were right.

Adjournment


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the three issues which have been raised.
The first issue concerns the possibility that Bill C-55 would give the government the power to change the indexing provisions of the Public Service pension plans by regulation.
As the President of the Treasury Board previously explained to the House, the government has never had any intention of changing inflation protection for Public Service pensions in such a way.
A thorough review of Bill C-55 has confirmed that the authority in the proposed new section 71 of the Public Service Superannuation Act could not be used to modify or abolish acquired rights, including indexing.
Nevertheless, to reassure federal pensioners and employees, the proposed amendment to Bill C-55 has been drafted and given to members of the committee studying the bill. The proposal would specifically limit the scope of the government's regulation-making powers in this regard.
Regarding the government's contributions to the Public Service Superannuation Act, I would like to assure members that Bill C-55 does not provide for premium holidays by the government.
It does require the government to contribute an amount each year that is sufficient to fund benefits as they are earned by plan members regardless of whether there is an existing surplus for past service. We expect the contributions to the pension account will increase, not decrease.
Finally, setting the interest rates credited to the pension accounts by regulation is simply a continuation of existing authorities. The current rate of interest credited to the superannuation account has been in effect since 1969 but could not have been changed at any time by regulation.
Those who suggest the government use its regulationmaking powers to lower the interest credits are ignoring the fact that lower interest rates would create a requirement for offsetting higher government contributions
which would obviously not be in the government's best interest.
In sum, I think a careful reading of the bill in the presence of the proposed amendment will clearly show that issues which have been raised should not cause any concern to plan members.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this House today and further elaborate on the question that I posed to the Minister of Finance and to the minister responsible for CMHC regarding the cutback to social housing that this government had put in place with respect to the budget.
While the Conservative government's recent budget offered access to home ownership for Canadians who have savings, it also eliminated the hopes of finding adequate and affordable shelter for thousands of Canadians in need.
The cuts to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's social budget will severely curtail the development of new affordable units of housing for this year and the next four years.
In 1990, the funds available for new units were $86 million. The government has reduced these expenditures by more than 50 per cent in three years. There will be some $600 million less in the next five years for social housing.
The CMHC social housing budget currently reaches only 6 per cent of Canadians, but still 15 per cent of the population, over one million Canadians, need affordable and adequate shelter. These Canadians are paying more than 30 per cent of their income for housing. There are over 250,000 home owners and households paying more than 50 per cent of their income toward housing.
The budget also eliminated the co-op housing program, a cost effective federal program that has been in operation since 1973 and has also provided people with affordable housing. There are 164,000 Canadians currently on waiting lists for co-op housing. Yet this government cut the program totally, not just reduced it, but cut it totally.
Co-op housing as we all know is targeted to low income Canadians. It is also designed to meet the needs of natives, the disabled, seniors and single parent families.
May 5, 1992

The government has relegated over one million Canadians to poverty with no hope of buying a home and with no hope of finding adequate shelter.
The Conservatives have implemented positive programs that the Liberal Party has been promoting for over a year, such as the RRSP proposal for home ownership and the 5 per cent down payment. Despite the implications of these long-awaited initiatives, the government has dealt an over-all blow to the housing industry and to people seeking affordable housing.
In 1992 social housing cuts will eliminate 7,615 new units for poor Canadians in need of affordable shelter. By the end of 1993, some 12,000 units will have been eliminated. Cuts to co-op housing will eliminate 4,400 construction jobs and manufacturing jobs in 1992 because of the loss of the program. The loss of over 12,000 social housing units in the next two years, combined with the loss in co-op construction, will further depress the housing construction industry.
The construction gains expected from the RRSP proposal and a 5 per cent down payment plan will be offset by the cutbacks. Yet, as I said before, the government, while we appreciate the moves that it made on home ownership, surely does not give much hope to those who are looking for affordable housing.
In these tough economic times adding to unemployment insurance and welfare expenditures will do nothing to reduce the deficit. What this government has accomplished is the progressive elimination of the federal role in housing through the budgetary process rather than through constitutional discussion and process.
Good housing policy is good economic policy and is good social policy. The bottom line is that it is investing in people and their futures, especially the ones who need our help the most.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the concerns that have been expressed in the House recently about social housing expenditures and the cancellation of the co-op index-linked mortgage program.
Social housing expenditures have been growing and were expected to increase by 5.1 per cent over the fiscal
Adjournment
framework. With the recently announced budget, social housing expenditures have been limited to an average growth of 3 per cent for the next five years.
Because of the limited time I am turning pages over. With respect to the termination of the co-op index-linked mortgage program, the program provided assistance for co-operative housing to promote security of tenure for households unable to access home ownership. The moderate income households who are clients of the program have more opportunity to access affordable decent housing in the private market.
Low income Canadians who cannot access decent, affordable and suitable housing in the private market will continue to be assisted through the ongoing social housing program. Co-op projects will continue to be available under the totally targeted non-profit housing program for those Canadians in need.


BOOK PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pursue questions I asked on February 3 and 14 critical of the government's book publishing policy.
The Minister of Communications, with great pomp and circumstance, acted surprised that anyone, particularly me, should question his new policy for book publishers. He said everyone was happy and quoted newspaper headlines of rave reviews in support of his new financial and policy initiatives.
Three months have passed and the dust has settled. The reviews now read: "Beatty backs down writing off the Canadian publishing and Ottawa just hates to say no to U.S. investors", proving that the industry was not fooled by the attempt of this government to camouflage the impact of the cost of the first ever Canadian tax on reading, the infamous goods and services tax, or cushion the loss of the postal subsidy. They realized that the hidden 10 cent on the dollar settlement was a sugar-coated pill, just a placebo. It was not a good public policy solution and certainly did not stem the number of bankruptcies and lost jobs.
The Association of Canadian Publishers at its annual meeting expressed grave concern about the federal government's retreat from policies aimed at achieving Canadian ownership and control of book publishing in Canada. It went on to declare firm opposition to any policy which would permit foreign takeovers of Canadian owned firms in book publishing and distribution. The

Adjournment
message comes from none other than the wholly owned Canadian publishing sector. It just does not like it.
Currently three out of four books sold in Canada are foreign. That amounts to over $750 million leaving Canada each year. The reason: our markets are dominated by big multinational foreign companies.
In the late 1960s the Canadian government realized that Canadian control of cultural media was the key to our cultural sovereignty, that is why limits were placed on foreign ownership of broadcasting in this country. The 1985 Baie Comeau policy was a start in the right direction of Canadianizing book publishing and there were successes. The major retail chain, W. H. Smith, became Canadian controlled. An important book wholesaler, John Coutts Ltd., returned to Canadian ownership. The Doubleday Book Clubs were brought under Canadian control with a resulting fivefold increase in sales of Canadian authored books, and for the first time Canadian controlled publishers handled an increasing share of the distribution of imported books which account for 70 per cent of book sales in Canada.
However, Baie Comeau had some serious drawbacks. It needed changes to require approval before rather than after investments are completed and to require that real control rests with Canadians.
These changes were never made and as a result the Canadianization process slowly unravelled. Canadians found when they attempted to buy Ginn Canada that real control was not for sale. They could buy 51 per cent of the equity but veto power would remain with the foreigners.
Canadian publishers had great expectations for the government. There had been task forces, studies, and consultation. However, last January 28 the government weakened rather than strengthened its publishing policy. How? Book publishers operating in Canada will no longer be required to divest control to Canadians when the parent company changes hands. Not only will the slow move to Canadianize the industry cease but Canadian owned firms can now be sold, under certain extraordinary circumstances of financial distress to foreign investors.
Last month President George Bush even got into the act. He said: "We will knock down barriers wherever we
find them, to open markets, for instance, for our movies and books. We will fight hard against protectionism both at home and abroad".
If the government is not backing off from its Canadian book publishing policy, if it is not saying yes to whatever the President of the United States says, then why does it not send a clear message by not permitting foreign takeovers of Canadian publishing subsidiaries like Har-per-Collins, Collier-Macmilllan and Grolier which are presently before Investment Canada?
Let us hear from this government. Let us have this government make a real commitment to Canadian cultural industries, not just pretty wrapped empty boxes made in the U.S.A.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications has asked me to thank the hon. member for Mount Royal for the opportunity to confirm this government's strong commitment to ensuring that Canadians control their own publishing industry.
The initiatives the Minister of Communications announced on January 28 will strengthen the Canadian-controlled sector through a better balance between industrial assistance programs and foreign investment policy.
In developing this new package the Department of Communications undertook discussions with the Canadian book publishing industry in order to develop strong and realistic policies.
At the request of representatives of the American publishing industry officials also met with them, giving them the opportunity to express their concerns regarding Canadian policy.
The new foreign investment guidelines have been strengthened through an enhanced capacity to apply the definition of Canadian control under the Investment Canada Act through the introduction of the anti-avoidance clause, and the establishment of a test for indirect acquisitions that will ensure net benefit to Canada and the Canadian owned sector in both cultural and industrial terms. The net benefit test will be strictly applied and monitored.
May 5, 1992

What exactly is meant by net benefit to Canada? Net benefit will be assessed in both cultural and industrial terms; for example undertakings to distribute imported titles through Canadian controlled publisher agents, undertakings to maintain full service distribution operations in Canada, and/or undertakings to partners with Canadian firms to publish, promote and distribute Canadian books both domestically and abroad.
Undertakings made by foreign investors will be closely monitored and enforced. The Investment Canada Act provides sanctions against non-compliance if foreign investors do not respect their commitments and they will be used when necessaiy.
To complement the new foreign investment policy the government will enhance the industrial assistance program by 260 per cent creating an additional $102 million over the next five years. Add to that the money previously committed and the Department of Communications will have a $140 million program in place.
A combination of the new $140 million publishing program and the new foreign investment policy will give Canadian publishers the support they need to prosper in the 1990s.
To conclude, the Minister of Communications said on January 28 when he announced the new publishing initiative, book publishing is vital to Canada's culture and communication infrastructure. A strong national identity requires a healthy Canadian publishing industry. This government is committed to enhancing the prosperity and the competitiveness of Canadian owned publishing houses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the motion to adjourn is deemed withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 6.40 p.m. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening, when the House will proceed to the emergency debate on the need for immediate national reaction to the violent demonstration in Toronto on Monday, May 4, 1992.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.41 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being eight o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 52(10), the House will now proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the need for an immediate and national response to the violent demonstration in Toronto on Monday, May 4, 1992.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52   TORONTO VIOLENT DEMONSTRATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the indulgence of the House with its unanimous consent to request that the member for Windsor-St. Clair speak first in this matter in my place, and that I be allowed to speak later in the normal rotation. Would that be acceptable to the House?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Spadina for having conceded the floor to me so that I might initiate this debate.
I want to thank him as well, and I want to thank the House generally, for having acceded to this adjournment debate tonight to address the response to the violence that occurred in Toronto last night.
I would have to say it is a rather narrow construction, because the violence we saw last night really reflects a number of problems that we as Canadians, parliamentarians and governments must address.
Let me point out to you that I find myself in an extraordinarily sensitive position because I was not elected to this place to be the spokesman on racial matters in this country. I am a parliamentarian who

hoped he could represent all Canadians regardless of race or colour in the same way as other parliamentarians.
I think that is what my constituents expect of me, but I think my constituents share my view that in representing my constituents as all other members of this House must do, I would represent them on an equal basis regardless of their colour, ethnicity, national origin or any of those other secondary characteristics which differentiate Canadian citizens.
I think that is premised on the notion that we are pursuing a goal, a vision in this country in which there will be equality for all Canadians.
As you may or may not know, I joined with others today in saying that the violent outbreak that was experienced in Toronto was not an appropriate or effective way of pursuing any grievances. It is perhaps not sufficiently emphasized that it was not by virtue of the actions of any group within the black community or those who organized the demonstration in Toronto that the violence that resulted was part of any scenario of expression of concern.
I said earlier, in responding to the violence last night, that we must deal with a number of issues. I think we have to understand that what we saw last night was not a rampaging group of black youths. It was a rampaging group of mixed racial origin and ultimately the majority who caused the damage we saw there last night were white.
Because those who were involved in the violence last night that we all condemn were not minority members, it does not mean we should disregard it. You may recall that back in 1985 the New Democratic Party published a report of its task force on youth. This report was constructed on the basis of consultations with youth. A sentence from that report reads as follows: What we heard is that youth had unique problems which possess the potential for crisis. It is this potential that prompted the United Nations to declare International Year of the Youth.
The call for the International Year of the Youth on behalf of the United Nations was worded very strongly in terms of its concern. It said there was a potential for an explosion among youth. We asked the government at that time to adopt a coherent policy that would address the needs of youth in consultation with youth and recognize the unique problems confronting youth today.
We look at those young people who by their actions were hooligans. There are thousands of young people who have gone to Toronto because of their joblessness, their alienation and their sense of powerlessness. They are thrashing around for whatever means they can find to survive. Last night their anger was appended to that of minorities in this country, without being a part of the specific concerns of those minority groups.
Back in 1990 I made a speech in this House in which I pointed out that any diversion from the Canadian ethic of a commitment to social justice, any erosion of our social programs, any adoption of an alien economic and political philosophy, as would be dictated by the free trade agreement, for example, would spell dangers. These dangers would rent the essential fabric of social justice that this country had devoted so much of its history to developing.
I said that crime, violence and racism, violence against women, family dysfunction, family violence, and a whole host of things would follow when people became unemployed, feared for their future, and yet were not responded to.
As I said the other day, Canada has had a notable record of progress toward social justice that has developed over many years. This is not a time to look south for the standards of our social policies, social commitments and economic arrangements. Instead we should ask others who want to join with us in any economic arrangement to live up to our standards of social justice.
We do not want to mimic the United States. The United States has ignored the problems of the cities and it has ignored the problems of poverty. It has ignored the problems of justice and education. It has ignored the problems of youth, blacks and Hispanics. There is a pursuit of wealth for hedonistic gain at the expense of too many people. Racism feeds upon that just as racism is exaggerated by it and just as those who are minorities will suffer most as a result of it. I do not want to see that repeated in Canada.
There is an awful lot of discussion about whether L. A. could happen here. I want to emphasize that Toronto was not L. A., but if we insist in believing that the more we become like the United States the better off we are, we will see our L. A. I plead for this nation, for this
May 5, 1992

government and for our people to understand the importance of what we have accomplished.
I never expected when I was a young man that I would be in this House. I have told the story about the experience of my race in this country over the two centuries and the more we have been here. My family came here in 1828 in the pursuit of freedom from slavery and oppression.
The conditions for my people in this country deteriorated over the years. As a boy I was excluded from jobs, public accommodations and a number of other things. Much has changed since then.
One thing I have always recognized is that minorities, whether they be racial minorities, aboriginal people, women or any other groups, are not going to have their concerns met if there is not a fundamental commitment in a nation to equality, justice and equal opportunity for everybody.
The social democratic evolution of this country over the years since the war has permitted considerable progress, change and advancement in the situation of visible minorities in this country. I was elected to this House irrespective of or perhaps because of my commitment to human rights and my outspokenness with respect to those matters.
It is a testimony to the progress we have made that I was elected to this House. It is sad that the conditions that brought me and others here are now being conceded to a different set of principles, foreign to our nation, that Canadians try to resist. They will continue to resist more because they suffer so much, just as those youth who last night expressed their frustration. Unless there is a fundamental re-establishment of a vision for Canada for all people, there is going to be failure.
It is true that the events in Los Angeles elicited a sense of shared concern and experience from the visible minorities and particularly the Afro-Canadian community of this country. That is why they prepared to have a demonstration before the American embassy even before last Friday night.
Meanwhile a black man was shot again in Toronto by a police officer. To understand the depth of feeling, you have to understand that in the last 14 years, 15 black men and women have been shot by police. In Toronto alone in
the last five years, five have been killed. It is a fact that most of the shootings that have occurred in Toronto have involved black youth.
That scene has been repeated in the capital, this city. Blacks have been accosted by police and no remedy was achieved in respect of these or other complaints about the situation in Montreal, Ottawa or Toronto.
I think any other group that found themselves in that position would begin to be suspicious of those circumstances. The black community has pleaded for an effective response, but it has not just affected blacks.
It has affected Asians and aboriginal peoples. An aboriginal woman who had been raped was punished more than the rapist by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In Vancouver there was a raid on innocent Asians because there seems to be something out of sync there.
Let me say over and over again that nobody is engaged in the rhetoric that says all police are racist. By no means is that true, any more than all Canadians or even most Canadians are racists. It is that some are and the majority have not found a way to respond effectively to deeply felt concerns of the minorities.
The police are just one element of our society. There are any number of problems in this country affecting visible minorities that have not been responded to. I said this morning that perhaps the reason why there has not been the kind of sensitivity and responsiveness to the concerns of visible minorities in this country is because of a failure of people to put themselves in someone else's shoes.
Just as men have not quite been able to understand women; just as those who are able have not been quite able to understand the disabled; just as those who are heterosexual cannot understand specifically the concerns of homosexuals or those who are differently sexually oriented, so it is that too many of the majority, especially in power and especially of influence have not been able to come to grips with the fact that if you are different in this country, your status is inevitably different.
Perhaps that explains the great insensitivity on the part of the government party, of the Official Opposition, of so many involved in the constitutional process, to what was being said by those who insisted that the charter of rights must be changed so as to recognize that all Canadians are equal, regardless of race, colour or ethnicity.
May 5, 1992

They did not understand when it was pointed out that section 15(1) which specifies that groups with respect to race or national origin or ethnicity, when it is twinned with the notwithstanding clause is, in fact, a specific declaration of difference. It is a specific declaration that there are some Canadians who are better than others or more important and more equal than others.
Thirty-three major ethnocultural and racial minority organizations in this country asked the government, asked the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee as they had been asking all of those involved in the constitutional process for over a year, to consider an amendment that would make it abundantly clear that equality is not contingent in this country and, in particular, it is not contingent on the particular attitudes of the majority at any particular time.
We asked for an amendment to section 27, which is the multiculturalism clause that would have added just these words: "That governments are committed not only to the preservation or enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canada, but they also must be committed to the preservation and promotion of ethnic and racial equality in this country". My God, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how it could be difficult for anyone to understand that position. We get all kinds of excuses.
If the notwithstanding clause is to protect democracy, it must be understood that a democracy ruled exclusively by a majority that is not bound to respect absolutely the rights of minorities, is not a democracy at all.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is not enough to say that we will deal with it in the next round. The Canadian public will not tolerate another round very soon and the next round will be too far in the future for those of us who are concerned about our status in this country to be satisfied. It must happen now in the Canada round. It must happen now in the people's round.
If we are going to treat the rights of linguistic and cultural minorities and if we are going to treat, as we must, the status of aboriginal peoples in this country, then surely it is not a big deal to add six words to a Constitution that would ensure that all Canadians of all stripes will understand that Canadians are Canadians are Canadians in this great land. That is not much. Why can
people not stand in our shoes and understand that we are only asking what everybody else assumes they already have.
There is great frustration out there because it is not just policing that concerns us.
Any number of problems are of concern to the visible minorities of this country. We asked the Prime Minister today for a meeting with the leadership of the visible minority community and were very pleased that we will have this opportunity for a direct exchange of views with the Prime Minister. That is a progressive step. It is also a progressive step that the Minister of Justice has agreed that there should be amendments to the fleeing felony rule, if that is what we appropriately call it to examine the conditions under which deadly force is used.
We want more. We want a judicial inquiry into racism in law enforcement, in the judiciary and in the Public Service. Many are concerned about the fact that government imposes a requirement for employment equity upon private enterprise and does not respond itself. We are also concerned that employment equity is not mandatory.
We want a judicial commission not because the facts are not known, because everybody knows the facts. By God, I have here just a few of the reports on discrimination in this country. The problem is where is the response. We feel a judicial inquiry would allow all Canadians to know what the issues are and to put appropriate pressure upon governments to act rather than talk. We do not want a paternalistic response. We want a partnership in looking at these problems.
We want an amendment to the Criminal Code that would make racism in the commission of a criminal offence an aggravating factor. We want the employment equity bill revised to create mandatory affirmative action. We want the Public Service subject to that law. We want the Human Rights Commission strengthened. We want the Court Challenges Program reinstated so minorities will have a chance to use it. We want the Human Relations Institute implemented. We want the Law Reform Commission to complete its work on reform of the law with respect to minority discrimination.
There are going to be others who speak on this issue-
May 5, 1992


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise today following a night of unrest and violence in the streets of Toronto to lament the tragic events which have taken place.
There is certainly a problem when persons do not feel safe in our city streets. This is why we must continue to apply ourselves most energetically at not only making Canadian communities safer, but also in restoring public confidence in the systems and institutions that are there to protect them.

I believe that the rule of law is one of the pillars of a democratic society. By maintaining the credibility of this rule, we maintain the legitimacy of democracy itself.

As Minister of Justice I have attempted to define my priorities in broad terms so that they would be understood by the public. First there is the protection of society. I am the minister responsible for the criminal law in Canada and a variety of other statutes that relate to general public safety and I am the lead minister for crime prevention.

Second, I want openness and equity to be the standard for relations between citizens and government.

The third priority is the one which I have always articulated as my top priority and it is one I call inclusive justice. An inclusive justice system or the approach to an inclusive justice involves the effort to widen the embrace of the justice system, to widen the scope of the mainstream to be defined to include all who are served by the system of justice. It refers to a system of justice that is capable of doing justice for all citizens. That clearly is the objective, but it is also apparent that the concerns expressed by the black community confirm that this work must continue.
This concept applies to many groups who have felt left out of the justice system. We must do all we can to eradicate this disaffection and dissatisfaction. The starting point for this search for inclusive justice involves understanding that there are different realities experienced even by people who live in close proximity to one another.
Last year I hosted two major national meetings designed to listen to certain Canadians talk about their views of the justice system. In June 1991 I hosted the conference on Women, Law and the Administration of Justice which was an historic event. Similarly in September 1991 I co-hosted with the Minister of Justice from Yukon, the Hon. Margaret Joe, a conference on aboriginal justice. We have reached out to groups who have felt left out and we will continue to do so.

I believe the Canadian justice system should serve all Canadians, not a hypothetical sample that represents only a hypothetical majority.

Inclusive justice is not just an ideal. It is a concept which we must translate into reality. The pain, the hurt and the frustration voiced by black Canadians should pain us all.
It is ironic that exactly a week ago tonight, I was in New York City giving a speech on the concept of inclusive justice to the America Society. At that time I talked about the importance of the credibility of the justice system for the long-term credibility of the democratic system. If people do not have confidence in the institutions of democratic society, whether they be the institutions of the justice system or of government or others, then their confidence in democracy is undermined, and at the end of the day all of society loses as its ability to govern itself in a free and open and participatory way declines.
The history of the world shows that even democratic societies can regress. There is no guarantee that once we have achieved democratic goals they will be maintained. Therefore, the price of democratic society is eternal vigilance. We must never assume that because we have achieved a goal at one stage of our history that it is guaranteed for all stages of our history unless we preserve it.
It was ironic that in discussing inclusive justice on Tbesday night in New York City, Wednesday was the day that the decision on the Rodney King case came down in Los Angeles. It generated the events which have been so shocking and so disturbing to people around the world.

May 5, 1992
Those events were what we might call the QED or the demonstrated proof of the extent to which the institutions of a democratic society can be undermined by people's lack of faith or confidence in a justice system. In that case, whether rightly or wrongly, I am not familiar with the details of the case, but there was clearly a widespread belief that the justice system had not served justice and had, in fact, demonstrated the exclusion of key segments of American society from the purview of the justice system and its protective embrace.
It is my understanding that the verdict in the Rodney King case in the United States motivated black people in Toronto to hold the demonstration yesterday. However, the shooting by police of Mr. Lawrence in Toronto last Saturday served to heighten the tension and arouse feelings of hurt and discontent.
As I mentioned in answer to a question from the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair in Question Period yesterday, my officials have been working on developing a legislative proposal for the amendment of subsection 25(4) of the Criminal Code to amend the so-called fleeing felon rule. It is my hope that a legislative proposal on this issue may be introduced in the House of Commons either before the summer recess or in the early fall.
I want to address in more detail the concept of how we achieve an inclusive justice system, this goal which is so important to the continuing strength of a democratic society.
The first thing we have to do in moving toward inclusive justice is make that intellectual leap to accept the fact that all institutions of society and institutions of the justice system are riddled with value judgments. They do not exist in some kind of pristine Olympian purity, separate from the passions and beliefs and concerns of ordinary human beings or of the views of a particular time and epic in society.
If we cannot accept the fact, and that is often the hardest intellectual emotional leap for people to make, that the institutions we value are based themselves on values, then we can perhaps come to question those values and to assure ourselves that the values which underline the system and which are the basis of the system continue to be valid in current times. We will find that in many ways, institutions which have served us well over the long term continue to be current, continue to be democratic.
In many other ways, the underlying values of the system deserve to be questioned and deserve to be challenged.
The first thing we have to do is make that intellectual leap and accept the fact that often there are arbitrary values which underline the institutions of society and which deserve our scrutiny and questioning.
I think it is important for us to learn to listen and consult. Can we accept the fact, as I said, that in our society people live different realities? I would like to give examples for this with respect to women and their situation in the justice system because it has been a major preoccupation of mine. I have often started out my approach to women and the law by pointing out that the reality of life for women is very different in many respects than the reality of life for men. I think if we want to do justice for all people in society, we have to first of all listen to them describe their reality. We have to consult with people and let them define their problems for us. We must not always assume that we understand how they see their lives and how they see society.
I often think of the American sociologist, Jessie Bernard, who in the 1960s wrote a book called the The Real World of Marriage. She said that in a marriage there are really two marriages. There is the husband's marriage and the wife's marriage. She said that even within this intimate relationship there are two quite different realities. Very often in society we think we understand how everyone lives and yet very often we will find ourselves shocked by the description of how some people see and experience a society that we feel very familiar with.
When I did consultation on the question of the rape shield legislation after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the old provision of the Criminal Code, I met with a variety of groups. I met with legal academics and I met with representatives of the bar. I also met with representatives of a broad range of women's groups. I think it is important to point out that, even as a woman, my own life experience does not encompass the entire experience of women in Canadian society. I am limited in my ability to understand every woman's experience. Therefore, just being a woman does not give me a complete background or a complete basis on which to
May 5, 1992

reflect the reality of Canadian women in legislation and policy.
This was very much underlined to me when I sat and listened to these women talk about their experiences with the question of sexual assault. A black woman from Toronto said to me: "If you were sexually assaulted and you go the police station, then because of your race, because of your class and because of your position in society you will be treated with respect. You will be listened to. The system will respond to your pain and will do justice for you. However it will not respond to me. I will not get the same kind of respect or service or comfort because my race is a barrier". That is a shocking and disturbing thing for me to hear but it is important to understand it. That is the reality for that woman and for many other women.
When we want to reach our goal of inclusive justice, after we have accepted the fact that we do not all live the same lives and there are arbitrary values that ought to perhaps be questioned, we do have to listen to people. We have to let them describe their reality and experience and not assume that we know what is going on.
In the two conferences I was speaking about, the Conference on Women, Law and the Administration of Justice in Vancouver, it was the first time that many of the participants there had all been at the same meeting. It was the first time that members of the judiciary had sat down with representatives of women's groups. It is a wonderful thing to be Minister of Justice because you can invite members of the judiciary and they will actually come to a conference. Many of the people there were people who had been very active in various areas of the law but they had never been together. For many of those judges it was the first time that they had sat face to face with people who have felt excluded from the protection of the justice system. They heard in their own words how they see the system working. It had a powerful effect.
Shortly after that conference I was in Quebec City and met with the chief judge of the Quebec Provincial Court at another kind of event. He was very excited about the meeting in Vancouver and said he had in fact already begun a program on gender bias in his court, so powerful
were the messages communicated. There was a variety of examples of this.
In Whitehorse, in our Conference on Aboriginal Justice, one of the ways in which we tried to bridge the cultural gap between those of us who came from what we might call "the mainstream" or non-aboriginal community and the 50 per cent of the participants who were aboriginal people was through the use of theatrical productions. This reached deep into the hearts of the people who were there and communicated viscerally the sense of pain, alienation, strangeness and exclusion experienced by aboriginal people in dealing with the broader society of this country and particularly with the justice system.
This question of listening and really hearing the message and allowing people to define their realities is vital. Then, of course, you have to invite people to participate. If you want to resolve problems you have to involve people in the participation. I found that when I invited people to participate in developing the outline of the rape shield legislation that because of their different perspectives and because of their experience and because of their focus on this issue, many excellent ideas came forward.
One of the things we have to do is lift from our own shoulders the burden of feeling that we have to have all the answers. None of us has all the answers. If we feel we have to have all the answers we will be crushed by that burden. If we understand, however, that those who seek the recourse of the parliamentary process, those who seek our assistance and help, have insight into what will help them. If we understand that there is an enormous amount of expertise, advice and considered opinion in society, then it makes our job easier and more enjoyable.
More importantly it gives those people faith in their right to be part of the political and democratic process. They will share support of what we do because they are part of it.
Finally, we have to translate what we have learned into new public policy and legislation such as the amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with sexual assault that I was able to bring forward with the support of so many in this House. That is the ultimate proof of the pudding. It is how we translate this new insight into new

May 5, 1992
ways of doing things, into new ways of thinking and into things like judicial education and the ways of educating our legal and justice personnel.
Similarly I think it is important to broaden that sense of participation as part of our policy response to bring people inside. One of the things we looked at in our Women and the Law conference in Vancouver was the women in the legal professions. There is no point in saying that we must appoint or name more women to the bench if women get educated in the law but are not able to stay in the profession as a result of pressures in society that push them out.
The same thing applies to aboriginal people and other minority people in Canada. If we want them to take their place in the system we have to make sure that the doors are open to those crucial ports of entry that make it possible for them to do so.
The kinds of appointments that we create as a government is also very important. Appointments, whether they are to the bench or to positions in society, send a message of the "mainstreamedness" of people or the inclusion of people in the mainstream.
The whole idea is to broaden the mainstream and to say that being a Canadian means to be all different sizes, shapes, colours, genders and predispositions, but that they are all equally Canadian. The proof of this is in the reflection of all of these people in the institutions of democratic society so that each Canadian can see himself or herself reflected. They can see someone like themselves and therefore they can have confidence that government can respond to them and the justice system can do justice for them.
My main focus on inclusive justice has been women and aboriginals. Those have been my main themes.
I am also concerned about visible minorities and I am very concerned about the situation in large cities where, as part of this problem, there has been a backlash against immigrants. This has contributed to a sense of unrest. I have been meeting, as I have mentioned in this House in Question Period, with the mayors of the large cities to work toward developing some strategies that would address some of those concerns and the situation which led to the very unfortunate events in Toronto. The sense of exclusion is very much part of that and I hope we can develop a process that will involve the same inclusive
process of listening and developing and understanding the issues on that particular area as well.
It is important to have previously excluded voices in the debate. Through an inclusive approach to justice I think we can reduce the fragmenting particulars that we see in interest groups by broadening the mainstream. People will no longer have to press their noses against the glass and feel that they are special pleaders but that they are an automatic, accepted and welcome part of the debate and discussion in democratic society.
Not only will inclusive justice strengthen democracy but I believe that inclusive justice represents itself the truest expression of the democratic ideal which is the equal dignity of all citizens and their equal protection under the law.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Rodney King. The image will be burned in the mind's eye of Americans, Canadians and the world community alike. We saw a man on the ground being beaten systematically and in a way that if you beat a dog that way you would have the SPCA after you.
The question that people asked themselves after the Rodney King verdict was: "Why did justice fail that man? What were the variables that made him different?" Similarly, we looked at Rodney King and said: "That could never happen in Canada because we are a more tolerant, more open and more empowered society".
Barely 48 hours later there are incidents of violence in Toronto and the death of a young black man. Again, there is legitimate public outcry to shake up an all too complacent Canadian society that says that the Los Angeles problem is strictly that which occurs in the United States.
Clearly that legitimate protest escalated. Violence begetting violence is not justifiable but it is understandable. I think it has to serve as a clarion call, as a cry for help and as a warning bell to those of us smug Canadians who think that that could never happen here in this country.
We pride ourselves on being a tolerant society, open to all cultures and free of bigotry. We are appalled by the history of slavery in other countries. We are concerned by the rise of intolerance and racism in places like Europe and the United States. We are proud of our international reputation for the fight against apartheid.
May 5, 1992

All too often, we forget that Canada, too, has its own shameful history of racism, discrimination and intolerance. The Metis, Inuit and Indians were deprived of traditional lands, languages and cultures in an attempt to "civilize" them or assimilate them into a Christian and European-rooted majority.
Until recently, aboriginal peoples were confined to reserves if they wanted to retain their status and were denied the administration of their financial affairs. That was only put in the hands of the financial officer who was the white man on the reserve.
Registered Indians were not given the right to vote in federal elections in this country until 1960. Indian women on reserves still do not have the same rights as other Canadian women. A great step forward was made when, in 1971, a federal multiculturalism policy was announced. It was a policy that proclaimed the equality of all ethnic groups, respect for Canada's diverse cultures and support for cultural retention and enhancement.
It was a great step forward from a history going back to the 18th centuiy. In 1750, there were 4,000 black slaves in New France and their number increased along with that of the rest of the population, British and French, until abolition in 1833. That is something that young Canadians do not learn about in our history books.
Chinese men were brought into western Canada to provide cheap labour for railway construction but when the economy slumped all Chinese were refused entry into Canada. Does that sound familiar?
In an economic slump it is very easy to characterize last in as first out. Canadians of Japanese, German and Italian origin were stripped of their rights and sent to internment camps. Some Canadians were compelled to pay taxes but were denied the right to vote until 1947. Racial exclusion existed in the Immigration Act as late as 1967. It has only been in the last 25 years that race was no longer grounds for exclusion from this countiy.
We have seen the attack now on the notion of two official languages for this country. Let us go back to the history of bilingualism and what it meant to us.

In the sixties, when francophones in Canada were a minority from every point of view including employment, lack of power and a general feeling of being ignored, a number of specific policies were introduced at the national level to create a system that would give the francophones of this country access to power. It is true that francophones have advanced by leaps and bounds. Unfortunately black people and women in Canada are now in the same situation francophones were facing 25 years ago. We are under-represented in the House of Commons. There is also a lack of access to power despite all the high-sounding statements we hear on all sides.
When we want strategies specifically for women or black people, there are people who want to prevent that, just as there were people who wanted to keep francophones out in the seventies.

We have pushed ahead. In 1960 the Canadian Bill of Rights under John Diefenbaker legislated against racial discrimination. I mentioned earlier the federal multicultural policy which is under attack now by people who say it has nothing to do with race, it has nothing to do with immigration. It has everything to do with race and everything to do with immigration.
We moved ahead with the race relations unit in 1972. In 1982 the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibited racial discrimination and permitted compensatory programs.
We see as we speak that the very program to allow minorities access to the courts by way of the Court Challenges Program is under attack. It is under attack because there is an agenda in this country which is not that different from the agenda that put names like Jean-Marie Le Pen and David Duke on the map. That agenda would say that the only way we can make Canada whole again is by going back to the economic power structures of the fifties and the demographic make-up of our country in the 1950s.
In fact the challenge that faces this Parliament and the challenge that faces the people of Canada is making sure that every valuable resource, every valuable human dividend, be paid by every person in this society, whether

May 5, 1992
they be black, white, men, women, and whatever their sexual orientation.
We must stamp out the systemic racism we saw exhibited in the Rodney King case. Unfortunately systemic racism that says that if you are a black person in this country, all other factors being equal, you can expect to earn 30 cents on the dollar less than a white man. Or if you are a woman, you can expect to earn 34 cents less than a white man, factoring out all other issues. It is the same systemic discrimination in this House of Parliament. Looking around the room one sees faces that are not very representative of the reality of Canada in 1992.
Five years ago, the Employment Equity Act was introduced federally to try and redress some of the imbalance that exists at the employment level.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission in its most recent report outlined the fact that unfortunately the federal government is the worst offender when it comes to application of employment equity where it counts. That is in the pay cheques of working people across this country.
Visible minorities make up 6.3 per cent of the population but they represent only 3.5 employees in federal departments and agencies. Moving to senior levels it is even smaller, 2.1 per cent. Over all the private sector is doing better with 7 per cent but employment equity must be pursued and strengthened.
Looking at the recommendations of the Advisory Group on Race Relations established in Halifax following last summer's incidents, it will be known that the key to changing attitudes is education and communication in the workplace, in the media, in Parliament. It particularly stressed the crucial issue of police and visible minority relations.
It is necessary that initiatives be taken. It is not just a police issue, but the police are the most visible example of authority of empowerment that people see on a daily basis. We need intercultural training. We need recruitment and selection and there are strategies being developed.
In my own community of Hamilton we have had a race relations committee for several years. In fact it has been crucial in working with the Hamilton-Wentworth police to ensure an increase in the representation of women and minorities, not only in the typing pool but also out working in the community.
Because women and minorities tend to be last in, they can also be first out in a hiring freeze. They have developed specific strategies to ensure that even when budget crunch time comes that the increase in hiring of women and minority constables will proceed. Last year, among 42 constables hired in the city of Hamilton, the majority-17 women, 8 visible minorities-came from the non-traditional community. That is the way to deal with the problem.
It is not just an issue relating to the police, it relates to this place. The Lortie commission gave us a number of very specific examples of how we could move forward to make the political process more open and more accessible.
You heard the member for Windsor-St. Clair say how surprised he was to be in this place. Well, it is important, not only for the member for Windsor-St. Clair but also for all young Canadians that we have men, we have women, we have role models across the board to ensure that greater and greater penetration of the political process will be achieved by those who are sitting right now on the outside.
Obviously, it goes through the whole system. It was interesting. When Ben Johnson won a gold medal we all watched him and we were proud of him as a proud Canadian. When he ran into problems, he became that young guy from Jamaica.
It is critical that in addressing strategies we break open the barriers that prevent young black women and young black men from considering a career in politics. There is the glass ceiling.
I spoke recently to the Malton Black Development Association and it was formed more than 15 years ago with the objective of keeping young people in the school system. Do you know what the association told us? They shared a phenomenon that is quite apparent also among young women. Young black students in Malton and young white students in the elementary school proceed on a fairly even, equal keel. As soon as they hit adolescence, in the same way as girls, the educational performance starts to drop so you see the same phenomenon of the glass ceiling facing young blacks.
Fifty per cent of the population in Toronto jails is black. Are they more criminal? Are they somehow a greater danger to society or do we pursue, imprison and react to them in a different way? How often do you read in the paper "White man kills his wife"? You read "Man

kills wife", unless it happens to be a person of colour in which case it is "Black man kills wife".
The stereotypes that we face as women, the glass ceiling that young adolescent girls feel when their self-esteem starts to go down and their capacity to dream starts to die are the same road-blocks that provoke the very violent reaction to the Rodney King judgment. Also, there is the fact that unfortunately, like it or not, we are living in a climate in this country where racism and sexism and all of the isms that affect our neighbours to the south are becoming a part of our society.
It would be very easy to treat this as an incident with no social message in the same way that some people said the Marc Lepine massacre had nothing to do with women.

I think it would be a mistake not to worry about what happened in Toronto. What happened in Toronto and Los Angeles is a clear message to Canada. Our country has a chance to prosper with so many different cultures. We must not be afraid to go ahead with this diversity. We are a young country, and we are building our own identity at this very moment.

Let us not be afraid of our differences. Let us understand that to make our country great we do not have to go back to the days when power was the exclusive domain of white Anglo-Saxon men. That cut out a whole generation of women and a whole generation of minorities who have something positive to share and contribute to the process. We do not want to cut anybody out, but this is about empowering people and this is about saying that there are a whole lot of human resources out there that are being wasted.
The sooner we recognize that this is not an isolated incident, that this is a systemic problem which requires a systemic response, the sooner we will be in a position to take advantage of the many talents and the different cultural domains that can make this country a great place.

I talked a lot about despair, but I think that with what happened in Toronto we have started a process that will
enrich a country that needs manpower at all levels. We must work together and be prepared to celebrate our differences together.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to update members of the House on my response to the situation in Toronto.
Members of my staff and I have been in constant contact with leaders of the black community and with the mayor's office which has been keeping me well advised as events have unfolded in Toronto. In my discussion with these people I have made it clear that my office is available to use our various programs in any way that may assist in this situation.
Yes, there are very serious problems. These are real problems. It is equally clear that what would be most helpful is a concerted, co-operative effort with all three levels of government. I will be holding discussions with my counterparts in the provincial and municipal governments of Ontario, as well as with the mayor of Toronto, June Rowlands, to determine the best way to proceed at this time.
As a member of cabinet I have been actively involved in race relations issues. I have been working on these issues virtually every day for the past four years. During this time I have attempted to bring race relations issues and specifically the problem of racism within society to the forefront.
I have worked to build a new Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship that has redirected resources away from empty ceremonies toward a practical race relations mandate. As a government we have developed new programs and initiatives to bring about real social change.
In so doing I have built a relationship of trust with Canada's cultural communities. Together we have forged many exciting partnerships. Together we have made progress. Yet together we still have much more to achieve.
The decaying influence of racism does exist within too many of our institutions throughout Canadian society. I have seen a willingness to learn, to understand, and to be a part of the process of change. We have seen this

May 5, 1992
willingness in Halifax, in Montreal, and now as the ministry of equality and participation we are ready to move very assertively in Toronto.
As all hon. members of this House and the vast majority of Canadians, I have only regret and sorrow for the events which have occurred in Toronto over the past several days. I have equal sorrow for the death of a young man last Saturday night. Whatever the circumstances of that death, and as we speak here tonight they are still not fully known, we can surely regret that any life be lost through violence in our communities.
The incidents themselves have raised many questions, many of them legitimate and well founded, and it is right we debate them tonight. The incidents have also raised comparisons between Canadian cities and those in the United States, between Canadian attitudes and approaches to minorities and attitudes and approaches to minorities in the United States.

I want to state firmly and categorically, Mr. Speaker, that Toronto is not Los Angeles. When it comes to racism and racial discrimination or the way the federal government reacts to such problems, Canada is not the United States.

Yes, there is racial discrimination in Canada. It occurs in housing. It occurs in employment. It occurs in education. It occurs in our justice system. It occurs in many sectors of our society, government included. Yes, sir, I am sad to say there are Canadians who promote racist doctrines and racial hatred as there are Canadians who seek to benefit from such doctrines for their own advantage.
Does that mean that Canada itself is a racist society, a society irrevocably committed to preventing its ethnic and cultural minorities from access to and integration into the mainstream, from participating in the life of this society as full and equal citizens? The answer to that question is a resounding no.
When this government came into office seven and a half years ago, it did so with a very clear vision of Canadian society, of both the challenges and the opportunities posed by Canada's increasing diversity, and of
the fact within Canadian history there have been traditions of racial discrimination toward aboriginal Canadians, Canadians of Japanese and other Asian origins, black Canadians, Jewish Canadians, and others.

Our objective was and remains to ensure that Canada continues to grow and prosper for the greater benefit of all its citizens. Nevertheless the search for this prosperity demands more than economic measures. It requires eliminating the obstacles that can prevent equal opportunity and even keep some people from participating in society. It demands increased sensitivity and better understanding of the nature of cultural and ethnic differences. If these differences are not to be considered a threat or a source of division in our society, vigorous initiatives to help minorities integrate into our society are required.

In 1986 the Prime Minister proclaimed in the House of Commons Canada's participation in the United Nations second decade to combat racism and racial discrimination. In 1988 federal, provincial and territorial ministers agreed to commemorate the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in all Canadian jurisdictions. In 1989 the federal government launched its first national campaign against racism.
Today the March 21 anti-racism campaign, as members of this House know, has become the largest anti-racism initiative of its kind anywhere in the world, in any society. It has contributed to a deep and growing awareness among Canadians of not only the dangers of racism in our society but of the responsibilities of all citizens of goodwill to fight and eliminate it from our society. When literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians give up their time, energy and money to participate all across Canada in such a campaign, I say no, this is not a racist country.
I have given the particular example of the excellent partnership that has developed with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters that last March 21 contributed over $10 million of free advertising to help us in our understanding of what we are and what we become as a wonderful sharing and caring community.
May 5, 1992

I was at the launch of a New Year's program that is encouraging us now to talk, to get to know each other even better. It was clear in what we had been able to learn through this past year that attitudes have improved, that we have made progress, and that we are more comfortable with each other. Notwithstanding the fact that we still have to know more about each other, we still must more effectively communicate how we all can participate more fully in society. That is one example of what has been done and what we will continue to do.
Canada, as I said, is not a racist society in the way it has embraced the challenge of facing up to the need to examine and change our institutions, to look hard and carefully for discrimination, and to learn to serve an increasingly diverse community. Today in and across Canada the federal government is working in partnership with literally dozens of sectors of our economy and society to eliminate institutional barriers and to increase the participation of minorities.
Those partners include the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Association of University Presidents, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I could go on and on because I have now had a four-year experience in helping build these various partnerships.
I can tell hon. members of this House that our programs are making a difference.

Throughout Canada today, more and more municipalities are using models and training techniques that we developed in co-operation with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to improve services to members of minorities. A growing number of mayors have created advisory boards on race relations to study and monitor hiring and recruiting practices.
We just recently, on March 21, had the pleasure of announcing a very important initiative with the mayor of the city of Montreal, Jean Dore, and with the provincial minister, Madam Gagnon Tremblay, where the three levels of government have agreed to co-operate, to collaborate and co-operate to bring forward a concerted
effort so that 1993 will be truly a year of cross-cultural understanding.
These initiatives have been going on unabated right across the country.

More and more communities are reaching out to minority organizations and associations to encourage them to take part in civic and community activities.

Today, from initial research projects sponsored by the federal government, universities across Canada are confronting racism on campus, and not just the actions of bigoted students who have attracted headlines in the newspapers. They are looking at issues of minority representation, at curriculum and at other areas identified as impediments to the achievement of black and other minority students in post-secondary education.
Similar projects and initiatives are aimed at racism on the shop floor, at encouraging minority participation in the media and in social services, at increasing enrolment of minority students in law schools, at encouraging the development of minority owned businesses, and at improving the hiring and promotion ratios at all levels of government, not least at the federal level.
I would say to this House again that those initiatives are making a difference, not a superficial difference, not a cosmetic difference that is here today and gone tomorrow, but a fundamental difference, one that is going to keep on going in the years ahead.
Nowhere will that difference be more felt than in the institution at the centre of the events in Toronto. The role of the police in our society is pivotal. As I have said on many occasions, the very ability of this or any other free society to police itself depends on a relationship of trust and respect between those to whom we have given the power and authority to enforce the law.
Without that relationship, either the policing does not work or the freedom is diminished. It is as clear and as critical as that. We cannot have two standards of justice, two codes of conduct or two levels of trust. That is why one of my first actions on being appointed minister of multiculturalism four years ago was to undertake a major consultation to develop a national strategy on police race relations in Canada.

As a result of those consultations, a national action plan was agreed to and endorsed by the provinces and territories, by leaders of policing services, and by aboriginal and visible minority communities.
Less than two weeks ago, right here in Ottawa, we officially inaugurated a central part of that plan, a national police race relations centre, most of the funding for which will come from my own department and that of the Solicitor General.
The national centre is already making an impact in helping police departments and services across Canada to train their police officers to the needs of a multicultural society as other aspects of the national action plan are also making an impact.
I do not question that we have much more to do and much further to go, but the fact is the essential elements are already in place and they are working. The commitment of many police services and police commissioners has been outstanding. Initiatives in community policing, minority recruitment, and close police minority community liaison are proving the actions we began taking years ago are starting to produce dividends.
They are producing dividends, because this government has responded to the challenges of racism and discrimination in our society by facing the issues directly and openly as no other Canadian government in our history.
The programs I have outlined this evening are working, not because we went to the CLC and the CACP and the universities, but because we went to the CLC and minority communities themselves, because we went to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and Ha-rambe, the Committee for Racial Justice in Vancouver, the Cultural Awareness Youth Group in Halifax, and CRARR in Montreal. When there were troubles in Halifax last summer we sat down with the city, with the province and with the black community in Halifax to answer not only the immediate problems but the years of discrimination and institutional indifference behind them.
I have seen it suggested that I should be holding high profile meetings with this or that community in the light of the events in Toronto. I am not against such a move, but the fact is that I am meeting every week with
representatives of minority communities and organizations on the same issues at hand here, and not only from Toronto, but right across Canada. We are in constant contact. I would invite my colleagues in the House to review my department's annual report to see the full scope of our collaboration and partnership.
I might also add that the whole purpose of my multicultural advisory committee being constituted as it is and not solely as a duplication of ethnocultural organizations is to give me a body of expert opinion in those areas vital to the objectives of institutional change-educators, media executives, police officers and business people. That is the approach of this government, to realize real change, lasting change, change that will open the doors to equality of opportunity and participation and keep them open.
As I said at the beginning of my statement, this government regrets as much as any of the events in Toronto over the last several days, and they only confirm how much more we have yet to achieve. Those events cannot and must not be allowed to overshadow the progress and the goodwill that has been achieved at many levels in our society; progress, I might add, that is reflected in many of the official appointments made by this government, such as Lieutenant Governors Lincoln Alexander and David Lam, Public Service Commissioner Gilbert Scott, Advisory Council president on the Status of Women Dr. Glenda Simms, deputy chairs of the Immigration Refugee Board Nuijehan Mawani and Emer Robles and many more.
Our challenge, however, is to build on these foundations so that one day no minister or member of this House will have to remark on a person's origin or community.
When the right of every Canadian to participate and to be included in the life of our society can be taken for granted, perhaps we will have arrived at such a day.
Until then we will continue to work to remove the barriers of discrimination, to fight the purveyors of bigotiy and hatred and to build the partnerships with communities and institutions across our country and societies, which are the only true responses to what happened in Toronto.

May 5, 1992


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a sense of disappointment, a sense of apprehension and concern. What we witnessed last night in Toronto was something that should never have happened and should never happen again.
All of us in this House must strongly condemn the use of violence to advance any cause, no matter how just it may appear. There is no need for Canadians of any colour to take to the streets with baseball bats and bricks. In Canada we use the ballot box to vent our anger and frustration. It is completely legitimate for police to take direct action to restore peace and safety in the streets of our communities.
Canadians should never accept the use of force as a legitimate means of achieving a political goal. However, we as parliamentarians are responsible for looking at how such an event can occur in this country. We cannot turn our backs on the underlying problem of systemic discrimination. We cannot ignore the fact that our cities have been neglected by the Conservative government.
Canadians demand that this government take action now to ease the causes of racial tension. Canadians say that cities are in economic crisis. Our educational system needs to be revised, and unfortunately members of visible minority communities have been left on the sidelines. This government has to commit to a comprehensive action plan that will actively address the immediate economic and employment needs of visible minorities and all Canadians.

Racism hurts everyone, whatever their country of origin, and the costs are enormous. Our human dignity is diminished and our attitude as a people goes back towards anger instead of moving forward to harmony. It is unacceptable in a country as rich in human potential as Canada.
Our country is in a crisis, but that is not a reason for everything to break down. On the contrary, when times are tough we must stand together. Unfortunately the government seems to have forgotten that it too has a role to play as a leader working for the betterment of its
citizens and ensuring that the economy is moving forward for the greater good of all.

When we read the papers or listen to the news all we seem to hear is that jobs are disappearing, crime is on the rise, education is failing our youth and people are expressing their frustrations through all kinds of behaviour. One example is such as we witnessed last night. Instead of building these institutions that will be able to help Canada deal with a diverse society, this government is shirking its responsibility by delaying the establishment of the Race Relations Foundation indefinitely.
The government is breaking a commitment it entered into with the Japanese community; $12 million of the $24 million cost of the program was allocated as part of the redress for their internment during the World War II. I guess this government did not really learn from the past. Are they waiting for things to get better so the foundation can have a safe academic haven?
I thought the reason for creating the foundation was to cope with, learn from and hopefully prevent events such as the one we witnessed in Toronto last night.

At the root of such conflicts we regularly find the same problem: poverty which too often leads to lack of education and thus to inadequate work. It is a vicious circle that creates tensions which in a time of recession explode.

In Toronto 213,000 men and women are unemployed and nearly the same number are out of work in Montreal. There is no light at the end of the tunnel for many of these people. People without hope look for easy answers and scapegoats. This contributes directly to an increase in intolerance and racism.
What these people need are the same opportunities. Canadians, irrespective of their racial origin, need to have self respect. They need to have jobs so that they too can participate as equals in Canadian society. This government must wake up soon and start working on a national employment strategy or what we saw in Toronto could happen again in different cities in this country.

[Translation}
In Quebec, 19.9 per cent of young people, who are our future, are desperately looking for work. In Ontario, the figure is 18.8 per cent. That is unacceptable. It is high time for those who can help solve the problems to work together, from governments and business people to schools and cultural associations.

It is by working together with members of all communities that we will be better able to understand one another's needs. We must abandon the notion that it is the other person who has a problem with people of different racial backgrounds. We must all accept responsibility for our actions. We must all reach out to one another to help each other. Together we can eliminate, not only the type of behaviour that occurred last night but the very root causes of such violence. This is the result of anger this has brewed in our inner cities for many years. If we do not learn from the events of last week in Los Angeles and last night in Toronto, we are bound to repeat them.

How can a government that says it is concerned about the economic future of this country so easily cut funds for the education of tomorrow's leaders? How can this government, which tells us that it wants the economy to recover and wants everyone to be able to work and have a decent job, take the required funding away from the provinces? Of course it does not happen overnight but rather in a sneaky way, because the public must not be able to denounce the scandal. They must avoid offending those, if there are still any left, who believe in a better future.
Whatever detour the Conservative government takes, the new generation is already handicapped because of the government's indifference and lack of vision.

We must be addressing the needs of our inner cities. When the community turns sour, so do community relations. B'nai Briths 1991 audit of anti-Semitic incidents showed a fourth consecutive year of increase. Such blatant increase in intolerance is something that all of us have a responsibility to combat.
Unfortunately there will always be differences between those who have in our society and those who have not. In the case of Canadian cities, it is the poverty, poor health care and lack of education that are the great equalizers. That is why the rage we saw in our city streets was not only black. People of all racial backgrounds are tired of their dire economic straits and they are lashing out at a system that has let them be marginalized.
How does this government react? As one might expect by now. It has cut education, it has cut health care and it does virtually nothing in terms of urban job creation.
I share the sentiment that no party has the monopoly on virtue on this issue. We must collectively accept responsibility for building a society that has still not accepted all Canadians as equal and deserving members of this society.
Everyone agrees that education is the key. This country is in great need of a government that supports policies for human resource development, training and quality education.
We need to invest in the education of our youth. We must give the tools to all our young people so that they know at the end of the day all doors are open to them. No matter what their colour, no matter what their socioeconomic condition, they have to be able to excel and to become anything they wish to be.
This country certainly does not need this government, which does not see, or does not want to see the needs of young Canadians who have the desire, the energy and the determination to succeed in this country. They have to be given a chance to succeed here in Canada and to be proud to earn a good living from the profession or trade of their choice. They must not build their future on the uncertainties of the current government. This government must seriously think of investing in the long term in order to ensure this country's future labour force.
To do this, not only must we promote education, we must also remove the systemic barriers to participation that are prevalent throughout society. The federal government, for example, still has a great deal to do in terms of making the Public Service accessible to members of visible minority groups.

May 5, 1992

People of colour are also looking for true justice from Canada's legal system. We have a tiny fraction of visible minorities in positions of power in our justice system. So long as this community is not adequately represented at all levels, this justice system will not meet the needs of all Canadians. We need to build a system that is accessible, not only in a physical sense, but in a cultural one as well.

It is time for Canadians to demand that the government keep its promises. I admit that it can be difficult, but Canadians must not become the victims of the bad administrative decisions of the present government.
If we are going to get this country going, we must have the right priorities: a healthy, educated population that accepts racial and cultural diversity.

Many people in Canada are probably wondering why the events of last night occurred. Surely we have mechanisms in place that can help Canada adapt to a racially diverse society. We do but they are not enough. The Department of Multiculturalism is a noble objective, one that the official opposition strongly supports. However, we must question the priorities that this government has set for the policy. It is concerned with the rhetoric of equality while doing everything in its power to ensure that disparity reigns in this country. It cancelled the Court Challenges Program at the very time when visible minorities were finally starting to use this resource to gain the rights they deserve under our charter.
This government must understand that equality under the charter is nothing more than a pipe dream if various minorities do not have the resources to challenge unfair legislation before the courts.
Despite all of our problems, we must recognize that Canada is a fundamentally just society. We do have problems. There is racism in our country. However, we in Canada believe that there is room for all. We are a huge nation with more geography and not enough history, as the saying goes.
We must learn from the events of the past few days. We must understand that our justice system has to be
more responsive to the needs of all of our people. No one in this House says that all players in the justice system are racist, however there are those who are. We must be collectively conscious of this fact and work tirelessly to minimize its horrible effects.
I feel that it is perfectly within our grasp to never again see the type of statistics we have seen in terms of deaths of black men and women.
I want to assure this House that I personally will support any endeavour which will protect the rights of ethnocultural and racial minorities. I believe that expanding the multicultural clause of the charter to include preservation and promotion of racial and ethnic equality is a point that must be looked at. I feel it is perfectly within our grasp that we include the preservation and promotion of racial and ethnic equality.

Yesterday's events in Toronto show us that Canada must not follow the American example of race relations. Canada must continue to build a system that treats everyone with dignity and respect. We must all work for a just and equitable society.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing the next 20 minutes with my colleague from Rosedale. We both represent constituencies in metropolitan Toronto and both want to say something tonight in this debate.
I would like to focus much more specifically on the situation last night in the city of Toronto. A lot has been said, and generally said very well this evening about the general policies in Canada, the historic evolution that we have made as a pluralistic society and the agenda that still awaits us.
I want to begin by really looking at what happened because the nature of a riot is a truly unusual thing to behold. It is something like an ugly festival of vengeance and revenge.
I think the first riot I ever saw was in my home town of Bracebridge on a Saturday night at a hockey game in the early 1950s. The rivalry between the Bracebridge Bears and the Sunridge Beavers was carried through by the fans and the citizens of both towns. The game disintegrated into fighting in the stands between all kinds of

otherwise respectable people. I remember my own dentist, a respected professional person in the town, down in the penalty box actually brawling with one of the hockey players. The only way it could be stopped was by playing the national anthem over and over again at full blast over the PA system to try and bring some solemnity into the arena.
I remember living in Montreal at the time of the police strike and seeing what almost amounted to the peeling away of that thin veneer of civilization that we sometimes pretend goes so deep, but in fact in the absence of policing in our cities we can see a very thin skin over instincts that otherwise are contained. I remember Dorchester Boulevard and Sherbrooke Street becoming racetracks and whether the lights at the intersections were red or green or amber, cars going by at great speeds. I can remember store windows being broken. I can remember looting. I was also there at the time of the dispute with the Murray Hill limousine service and the burning of the buses and the depot. I saw all of that as a young man in Montreal.
In Toronto in the 1970s I remember the visit by Mr. Kosygin of the former Soviet Union and the mounted police at the Science Centre and whether that constituted a charge by the police whether the police themselves rioted. I remember how Judge Vanini of Sault Ste. Marie conducted a judicial inquiry into that.
In all of this there is a very difficult role for the police authorities. The policing of society is something that, yes, professionally is entrusted to those who take the oath of office of a policeman or policewoman, wear the uniform and carry out those public duties. However beyond that, policing society is something that we all share.
Last night I was impressed that there were people on Yonge Street who were passing from the festive atmosphere. Sean O'Malley, The Globe and Mail reporter who found himself in the midst of the riot and actually being kicked and chased off the scene when he feared for his well-being and when he said that the crowd seemed almost festive until the attacks began.
In the article it is quoted not only about the breaking of the windows and the looting but also of others who were there who urged restraint, others who were there
who insisted that goods that had been stolen and looted from the stores be put back. Many of the young people who were there were working to contain the situation. Bystanders were working to contain the situation, this was something that showed that it was citizens as well as the police who were part of trying to contain what was erupting.
That is another point that must be stressed. There was a planned peaceful demonstration in the city of Toronto last night. What actually happened is that that peaceful demonstration was taken over by a hoodlum element.
The police chief of metro Toronto said: "The results last night came from actions by individuals who were criminally motivated".
In detail, some 100 stores were vandalized. In the case of several they will be boarded up for at least two weeks before they can begin business again. Some 37 police officers were injured. Some 32 people were arrested, mostly charged with breach of peace and assault.
Nobody deserved what happened in Toronto last night. The hidden costs of this riot have yet to be evaluated because they go beyond the cleaning up of broken glass, the restoring of stolen and looted inventory and the itemizing of dollar damage.
I was very impressed earlier this evening listening to the comments by one of the leaders of the black community in Toronto who said that you cannot take snap decisions in a situation like this. We need a lot of consultation.
The speeches by both the Minister of Justice this evening who spoke about inclusive justice and by our Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism who spoke about the continuing efforts he has made for four years to bridge the gaps and understand the differences and effect policy response are part of what must be continued.
The member for Windsor-St. Clair said, and I certainly agree with him, that what happened last night was certainly not an appropriate way of pursuing any objective. More important, it was not part of anybody's planned scenario to deal with the issues of legitimate concern.
May 5, 1992

I repeat that the peaceful demonstration was taken over partly by a mob psychology and certainly by some individuals as intent as one was quoted as saying: "Treat us like animals and we are going to act like animals". It was quite accurate to report tonight in the House of Commons, as several MPs did, that it was a mixed group and those who have been charged are of a variety of racial origins. That is why it is perhaps lamentable that the front page picture of the daily English language newspaper in the capital under this headline "Riot rocks Toronto, smash and grab" and everyone shown in the picture is a black youth. That was not representative of what was happening.
I again come back to the point made by the member for Windsor-St. Clair that we must always look at individuals, not at their colour, the racial background.
In 1985 when I chaired the committee on Equality for All we dealt with many of those equality issues. What was set out in that report was an agenda for a decade. Some parts of that are very much before us today.
In concluding, I would like to pick up on one final point that was mentioned tonight, again by the member from Windsor, when he said that the youths of the country need a vision, they need some sense of hope to deal with the alienation, the youth unemployment, the circumstances they find themselves in.
The member for Spadina tonight is calling for some immediate response. I would like to propose that Parliament and the government consider creating a Canadian youth service corps. I recall several years ago when the Katimavik program was cancelled, the minister of the day said that a replacement program would come in its wake.
The time has come to create for young Canadians a program that would operate for a year, voluntary service, where there would be different streams of training that could include, for example, the environmental stream, the social service stream, the reserve military training streams and various other streams.
This is a chance for young Canadians over the course of a year to join a Canadian youth service corps to find a new chance to work with other Canadians of their same
age from across the country to move around the country in the course of that program.
Sharing my time as I am with the member for Rose-dale, I cannot go on any longer to elaborate on the details of this but I will take early occasion to give more details as I have been working on this idea. I think it is one of many. There needs to be many responses to a situation like this. Properly seen, it can also be an opportunity to respond. I hope we will take that in a constructive fashion.


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, along with members from all sides of the House, I share with every one of them both the shock and the sadness of the incidents of the last day. They are not out of context with what we have witnessed on a larger scale, as already has been referred to with respect to the events previously in Los Angeles.
It was interesting, if one looks back at last week, that from the time there was an immediate upheaval in Los Angeles, questions were immediately put to leading public people in this country: "Could this kind of incident take place here?" I think, as I believe our friend from Windsor said, naturally what happened last night was not what happened in Los Angeles, but it was certainly a very loud echo.
It was a loud echo from a number of points of view. It is a reminder to all of us that we do live in a single universe, a single world and in a sense in a single community. We know that we have been struggling for a good part of this century to recreate a view of ourselves that extends far beyond our own time. The issue of racism is one that I think is extremely profound for those of us who are alive today.
Some few years ago I had an opportunity to travel to Senegal. I was taken to a little island off the coast of Dakar called the Island of Gore, lies Gore, which was the staging point for African slaves for centuries that were sent off to the rest of the world. Carved in stone at one point in this slave prison there was a series of statements indicating when slavery had been abolished in various countries and the list was not yet completed.
We are not that far removed from a time when people of different race and colour were bought and sold. In fact, we know that under the auspices of the United Nations there is still an anti-slavery commission which is

attempting to end the last vestiges of human slavery on this planet.
I have held the belief for some time that one of the greatest problems in allowing the people of Africa, both those still there and those throughout the world, to achieve their full respect and dignity is to overcome the centuries of human degradation and exploitation.
I know it is a popular Canadian belief to think that we do not have much by way of discrimination or racial intolerance in this country. If we look very deeply we know that is not the case.
In my lifetime, we have actually changed laws federally, provincially, and municipally which have ended the objective kind of racial discrimination. However just changing laws does not change attitudes. It does not change the respect that one person or one group has for another, and perhaps more important, it does not allow for that fulfilment of self-worth which is so critical.
The thing that has struck me about race riots going back over the last 20 years and particularly during that period after the assassination of Martin Luther King was when one looks closely at the victims of race riots it is the very people who are involved in the protest themselves. There is a large amount of self-inflicted pain that cannot be ignored.
When I think of even some of the people who would be shopkeepers, some of the people in places in my constituency who are likely affected by the riot last night, I am sure that many of them were members of the non-white population of Toronto. Therefore there is a horrible irony in what we are examining here this evening.
I would hope that one of the virtues of this debate, this dialogue, this discussion is that we are able to enter into-and the word has already been called for by my colleague from Etobicoke, by the Minister of Justice, and others-a genuine consultation with both the leaders and the members of various non-white communities in Toronto and elsewhere.
There are some deep-seated grievances that have not yet been addressed. While none of us accepts for a moment criminal behaviour that affects innocent victims as we have seen in last night's riot, none of us either can accept the fact that as long as people are living in the
agony of such continuing discrimination and despair that it is acceptable in our society.
I thank the member for Trinity-Spadina who shares with me a good part of downtown Toronto, an area where all this occurred, and hope that by his presenting this matter to the House for debate this evening all of us are allowed the opportunity to recommit ourselves to ensuring there is that full, open and consistent consultation leading to the full acceptance of people of all races in all aspects of our society.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I am very humbled in participating in this emergency debate, but I would like to take a little different approach.
I would like to share with you what happened in my riding of Parkdale-High Park on Sunday, just blocks away from where the black person was shot by the policeman after pulling a knife on him.
I was invited to participate in the Parkdale focus community to mark the beginning of Drug Awareness Week. We should remind ourselves that this is the week we are marking. Four schools took part in Drug Awareness Week in this Parkdale focus community. There was the secondaiy school, Parkdale Collegiate, the principal being Sheila Hambleton; Parkdale Elementary School, whose principal is Jim Wilkinson; the Holy Family School, a separate school whose principal is Dr. Helen Bochna; and Queen Victoria School, an elementary school under the principalship of John Powell.
Under this program, which was funded provincially under Project 2000, schools were asked to make a mural of what they thought Parkdale society meant to them.
You heard me talk about the problems we have in Parkdale-High Park such as the drug problems, prostitution problems, street safety, et cetera. These elementary and secondary school students wanted to tell the world through art what Parkdale means to them.
Under the direction of a well-known artist, John Leonard, they put together huge murals. One mural is almost the size of the wall behind you, Mr. Speaker. These murals were then put up on a side wall in the Bi-Way Store. The local BIAs were involved and Bi-Way donated a huge wall for the students' art. Of course all levels of government were there, -federal, provincial,
May 5, 1992

metropolitan Toronto, city councillors, trustees and others, and we had the unveiling of these murals.
As the first mural was unveiled, a huge cheer went up from the crowd. In the crowd were Canadians of black origin, Filipino origin, West Indians, East Indians, Poles and Ukrainians. I asked Sheila Hambleton how many different ethnocultural groups she thought were in the Parkdale area.
She said that in her school alone 52 different language groups have been counted. Therefore, a representation of these 52 different ethnocultural groups went out in unison, cheering this huge mural painted by the students of Parkdale Collegiate.
Then they went to the mural of Holy Family and there was the same reaction. There was this unanimous response, cheering the mural of the Holy Family School. Then on to Queen Victoria School and Parkdale Public School.
I went home that night and I heard the news of what was happening on Yonge Street. I could not help but compare the behaviour of the people in my riding, blocks away from where this black person was shot and the behaviour of the people on Yonge Street. Why the difference? It is an important question that we will have to ask ourselves.
I was and still am very proud of the constituents of Parkdale-High Park for their behaviour in not only marking Drug Awareness week but also showing a community spirit.
After the unveiling we had a cake-cutting ceremony. We had hot dogs and T-shirts for the children. There was an extended family feeling there, a real community spirit. I thought: "It would be nice if we could have that community spirit in all of Toronto, in all of Ontario and all of Canada". If it can happen in Parkdale-High Park, it can happen nationally and internationally.
I think we have to end tonight's debate. We should look at the root causes of the violent demonstration on Yonge Street. In order to look at the root causes, I believe we have to analyze some hard facts.
For example, it is fact that in metropolitan Toronto 47.7 per cent of the population was born in a countiy other than Canada. The source is today's article in Toronto's The Globe and Mail.
That means many of those people have never set foot in school. Many of them do not speak either of the
official languages. Many of them do not have employment skills. What are we, as a society, as four levels of government doing to help these people?
In that group will be many visible minorities, many blacks. Are we doing our share to help these people assimilate into our society? It is fact that 34 per cent of Toronto's visible minorities are under 19 years old. These young Canadians are asking: Will there be a job for me when I finish school?
Sixty-eight per cent of Canadians think that problems with racism and prejudice will not solve themselves over time without government intervention. We know the attitude of the present government towards privatization.
I do not think you can privatize racism. I do not think you can eliminate racism by saying: "We will leave it to the private sector". Every work place, every institution and every organization must have a race relations program, but the federal government, the provincial government and municipal governments must set the example.
I was fortunate in working for the Toronto Board of Education for 28 years. It did have a very successful race relations program. If there should be any riots or violence, it should be in the inner schools in Toronto, but there are not. There are not, thanks to affirmative action programs by the Toronto school system. I invite others to have a look at what the Toronto Board of Education has been doing to fight racism.
According to statistics for 1986 it is fact that during that time, the economy in Toronto was booming but even in the booming economy the unemployment rate of visible minorities was approximately 3 to 4 per cent higher than the local average. One must ask why.
According to the statistics of the last census, the average income in Toronto for males was $27,200. For females, it was $15,200. This is taken from Statistics Canada, 1991. This discrepancy between the sexes is bad enough but looking at visible minorities, the average income for men was $20,900 and women, $13,700, from the same source.
For black males and females in Toronto, the statistics are even worse. Black males earn on an average only $19,100 and females, $13,500. A Canadian of black descent earns $8,100 less than the average white Canadian. No wonder there is resentment, mistrust and a tendency to start demonstrating on the streets of Toronto.

Looking at housing, on February 25, 1992 the federal government cut our federally funded co-op housing program. With all the economic factors weighing against visible minorities, access to affordable housing such as this is denied.
In addition, this year the government will be cutting 22 per cent of all social housing and by 1993, the government will make a further cut of 29 per cent. In other words, nearly half the funding for social housing programs will be cut over the next two years. This was well documented in The Globe and Mail in February of this year.
I happened to watch Pamela Wallin interview Wilson Head of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations this morning. Mr. Head said that there is a lot of anger in secondary school students. He went as far as to say that they want to carry rifles. They are asking themselves: "Why should I stay in school? When I get out will there be a job waiting for me?"
I do not share that view with Mr. Head. I do not think our students are at the point that they want to carry rifles. I think that is the difference between American cities and Canadian cities. I have statistics on university graduates, and this is quite shocking. Thirteen per cent of all adults in Canada, or in Toronto here, hold university degrees, but 16 per cent of people in the visible minority group aged 15 and over hold university degrees. Now this sounds like the reverse of what is expected. But if you look at the black population, six per cent hold university degrees as opposed to 16 per cent of the visible minorities. If Canadians of Chinese descent, Pakistani descent, etcetera can go on to higher education, surely we can set the environment to allow the blacks to achieve the same level of education.
Let us look at the visible minorities and the blacks in the police forces. According to this morning's Globe and Mail Clayton Ruby states that "the Toronto Police Force committed itself to change its racial composition to include more minorities, but (because) of a hiring freeze nothing has happened". So it is no good just to say we want to hire more visible minorities if the budget is not
there to follow up. Words are useless unless actions follow.
Lower education for visible minorities and especially for blacks means poorer jobs, poorer incomes, over-representation on the welfare rolls, drug addiction, more arrests and more convictions. I think we have to look at where the blacks are in society, and maybe we will start understanding why there is such anger out there among the blacks in Toronto, Halifax, Montreal and other cities.
I would just like to close by saying that no society is immune from misunderstanding, intolerance, mistrust of religious, ethnocultural or racial minorities. In tonight's debate I hope we will set an example by changing our attitudes, if need be, so that all 27 million Canadians will be more tolerant of each other, more understanding of each other and more trusting of each other. If we can reach that point, we will have demonstrations because our Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows them, but those demonstrations must be peaceful. They must show respect for authority and for other people so no one is hurt in the demonstrations. Those demonstrations must show respect for property so there is no property damage as we saw on Yonge Street.
A business person from my own riding called me just before this debate. He broke out crying because he could not accept what he saw happening on Yonge Street. His business is on Bloor Street and he said that could have been his business. That is not Canada. That is not the way Canadians behave. And so he pleaded, through me to all Canadians, to show that respect for authority, to show that respect for property, to show this respect for others. If we do I think we will eliminate the kinds of demonstrations we saw last night on Yonge Street.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: What happened last night in Toronto was not a race riot. It was hooliganism. This is not the first time Toronto has had such riots. There have been riots at the CNE and previously on Yonge Street, and the Eaton Centre has become a regular target. Store owners must lock up their products and are on the watch for mobs of young people who think it is fun to rip off goods or people. I can remember when Yonge Street used to be a fun place to walk at night. It is not any more and it has not been for
May 5, 1992

quite awhile. It is a place where thugs, prostitutes and violent youth congregate. It is a time bomb.
The black community in Toronto is hurting badly because of the Rodney King affair and the succession of shootings of young black men over the past three years, but the community is not a violent one. I firmly believe that what happened last night was a peaceful democratic community demonstration by people who have substantial faith in the system and are working to improve it. However, it was hijacked by fringe groups and hooligans, some who came with the intent of discrediting the black community. They came equipped with Molotov cocktails, baseball bats, guns and knives. They saw what happened in Los Angeles and thought they could get away with it in Toronto.
Fortunately the police were prepared; not for this scale of incident but certainly the mounted police were brought in very quickly. Of course everybody was greatly in fear that something similar to what occurred in L.A. might happen.
The reasons for the initial demonstration are very valid. I do not know whether the particular killing was preventable, that will be decided, but I do know that the number of killings of young black men in Toronto indicates that there are very serious problems not only with police but also with young black men. There are also very serious race relations problems in general requiring considerable leadership and effort to address.
The problems facing its youth are something of which the community is very much aware. I know many people who are working in many programs to address those problems. There can be little doubt that this is one of the highest risk communities in Canada, along with aboriginal youth.
The community talks of the plague of drug abuse that is attacking and decimating its youth. While those who become criminal are a minority, there can be little doubt that the community is over-represented in the criminal population. It is also over-represented on the unemployment rolls and the poverty statistics and suffers wage discrimination. These points have already been made.
A greater effort to save these young people, a significant group of whom are obviously engaging in self-destructive behaviour comparable to many aboriginal people, must be made. There is no doubt that police
education and education of different people in contact with them in the community-teachers, service providers and the community in general-is greatly needed but I also know that there have been tremendous efforts made in the past.
There are programs in the metro police department that have been in place for a long time. There are race relations task forces. The task force in North York, the mayor's task force on race relations, was the first to get started. Many agencies have been providing programs for a long time.
It is the same with the boards of education. The member for Parkdale-High Park has already spoken about the programs of the Toronto Board of Education. All the boards have programs and all of them are trying.
I participated in some of the North York programs, the Chimo programs in which many different groups were represented, spoke and had opportunities to discuss these issues.
A lot is being done, but clearly more has to be done. It is a monumental job that has to begin very early. A lot must be done to improve educational and job opportunities for visible minorities and other disadvantaged groups, that too is a time bomb. Person after person comes to my constituency office to tell me about how they feel they have been discriminated against.
Very frequently the Chinese, and there are an awful lot of Chinese people in my particular area, are not discriminated against in the initial employment but they simply do not rise into managerial positions. Very frequently they feel that in spite of very excellent qualifications they simply run into this glass ceiling.
I think of African heritage language programs. I participated in a multifest on the weekend at which 3,000 students participate in the heritage language programs and the Woodbine Vanier program. There is an African heritage program there. It is a program in which people are being taught about their own history and in which they are being taught to value themselves. I think that is so important with youth. They need to know themselves well and to know their own history. They also need to have others know about them. Clearly many of the programs or units that are being taught about African heritage are being transferred into regular school programs. Consider more of that kind of thing where people

May 5, 1992
learn to value each other and help them integrate and appreciate others.
Child development initiatives such as those identified in the report on poverty that include strong community participation and self-help initiatives are also very important. We now have half a billion dollars.
I hope that a substantial amount of that will go to combat some of these problems that the young are facing and in particular, this group that is clearly not doing very well at all.
I think that in Toronto, unlike other parts of the world and perhaps much more so than in the United States, there is a willingness and a desire by the general community to do something about these problems.
There was a survey done by metro council which indicated that 90 per cent of Toronto residents would rather be known as a city where there was no poverty or homelessness rather than a world-class city. I think if you surveyed them on racism they would also say that.
I think that most Canadians want to have communities where all people are equal and where all people have equal opportunities to thrive, develop and share in the benefits of Canada.
I urge the black community and the rest of the community in metropolitan Toronto to seize some of the opportunities that will be coming forward in the child development initiatives can work on what is obviously a very serious problem.
I also urge the government to go ahead at this particular time with the Race Relations Foundation that has been approved by this Parliament and is ready for implementation. It was deferred in the budget but I think it is a venture important enough to be brought forward now at this time in light of the particular crisis we find ourselves in.


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate tonight.
Last night it was disturbing to turn on the television like so many Canadians in Scarborough, metro Toronto
and all across the countiy, to witness the events that took place in downtown Toronto.
These were scenes that we all felt really could not happen in Canada. We would all like to believe that Canada is a land of compassion and a land of tolerance. Yet, I think of the disbelief and the sadness and the despair that ran through everyone's hearts and minds after seeing those horrible television pictures.
Like most Canadians I believe metropolitan Toronto residents felt both grief and despair when they realized that some individuals right in the heart of Toronto, the largest city in Canada, felt obligated to express their viewpoints, not through debate and peaceful protest, but rather through violence.
We cannot condone this violence. Violence can neither be a response nor a solution to a problem and the destruction of private property cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. We must support the police in their restrained efforts to maintain law and order.
Yet we must all continue to make an effort to make sure that Canada remains a countiy where tolerance and compassion, equality of opportunity remain just not an ideal for a few but for all; a rule rather than an exception.
For example, young people in Canada have access to an open system of education. It is available to all. This system strives to encourage all young people to be then-best. This builds upon the numerous success stories we are all aware of. We can think of examples where people came to this countiy with nothing and managed to create through hard work, diligence, effort and help from their families, successful businesses or services, and in so doing they not only made a living for themselves and their families, but also contributed to the building of our magnificent country as a whole.
For people who need society's assistance we have instituted programs that have targeted assistance for those who need it the most. We all know there is always the need to do more.
No one can deny that the future of Canada rests with the education of our children. The future of our community depends on how well our fellow citizens understand, appreciate and accept each other. As a former teacher in
May 5, 1992

Scarborough, it is clear to me that we need to continue to make sure that the children of Canada in our schools have a broad understanding of human relations while attaining the skills that they need for the future.
Let me give an example. Just a couple of days ago I visited the John Diefenbaker School in Scarborough. It was most representative of the diversity of metro Toronto. Children were there whose parents came from all over the country, all over the world and the fact that the enthusiasm that was instilled in these children by their teachers who themselves represented the diverse, rich and varied population of Canada needs to be replicated and followed by other institutions and by the adult population of our country.
The federal government has responded with a program of action in the areas of race relations and the promotion of equality and tolerance. For example, our government announced a national action for police minority relations. Representatives of governments, police and visible minorities are participating and the resulting special Centre for Police and Race Relations which opened just last week here in Ottawa is an important and indeed timely step in helping police improve their relations with native Canadians and visible minorities.
In fact, the executive director of this centre is Mr. Barry Thomas. He is from Scarborough and deserves to be commended for the work he is doing and the extensive experience that he brings to this project. He previously served as the executive director of Tropicana Community Services, an organization in Scarborough that assists with programs in the black community and especially the youth of the black community.
Barry Thomas spoke about the centre's three broad goals. First is to establish the bias-free standards for selection and recruitment of members of the police forces. The second is to provide training and new training initiatives. The third and most important is community outreach and community programs which bridge the gap between members of the police force and all communities. They bridge that gap between ignorance and awareness. Public education is undoubtedly the key component in solving these problems.
As well, a number of initiatives have been undertaken over the years to help further the goals of tolerance,
equality, opportunity and full participation. To reward the partnerships in community race relations, the government established the Excellence in Race Relations Award. These annual awards honour individuals and organizations whose efforts help in our efforts to pursue greater sensitivity and understanding equality among Canada's diverse society.
As well, I commend the work of the Toronto Urban Alliance on Race Relations. The federal government has supported this organization which is working to promote equality for visible minorities in Toronto. The new Broadcasting Act, passed in the beginning of 1991, makes sure that the Canadian broadcasting system serves the needs of all members of our society.
Too often we take for granted the privilege of living in our magnificent country of Canada. All Canadians must understand that each and every one of us pays the cost of racism, economically, emotionally or both. By not using the diverse skills and talents of Canadians of all origins, we lose important human resources and creative potential. We should never forget that through the build up of tensions and hostility in our communities, Canadians lose their solidarity as a people.
We all need to continue to speak to each other. Whether it is at our kitchen tables, in our churches, in our synagogues, in our mosques with our families and with our friends. Understanding is required to foster unity between the many different groups of people that make up Canada and especially the large cities such as metro Toronto.
Aggressive changes and appropriate responses to combat the systemic intolerance in our institutions will enable us to continue to strive for harmony and dignity for all Canadian citizens.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the members of this House for agreeing to hold this debate on the causes of last night's riot in Toronto and possible remedies.
It is properly called a riot even though there was a difference between those who planned a peaceful demonstration and those who engaged in the acts of violence against property or against people. They are part of a much larger situation which we could describe as racial tension. I am grateful to the members who have given

May 5, 1992
5. 0. 52
specific suggestions which I hope will be heard around the country.
For example, the member for Windsor-St. Clair, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the member for Vancouver East who will be speaking later on this matter, the member for Parkdale-High Park and the member for Don Valley North made very specific comments.
In my 10 minutes, and I will be followed by the member for Vancouver East, I would like to dig a little bit deeper into what I think are the underlying causes of the tension.
The question is whether we hear what the demonstrators and the rioters are saying because they are not two different species of creatures. They are both human beings and they both, in different ways and perhaps from different stations in society and different states of concern or discouragement, are sending some kind of message. We have to try and hear it.
One story that was phoned to me today by one of the organizers of the demonstration who heard and observed what was happening on Yonge Street said that a young black man was trying to persuade a young white man that seemed to come from the suburbs to stop trying to kick a window in. He told him not to break the window because he would be blamed for it.
Of course as we have heard that other people tried peacefully to restrain the violence. I was also told by the same person who observed, that in his opinion it could have been worse than it was if it were not for the growing amount of mixed housing in Toronto in the housing co-operatives where people are very deliberately treated as equals and an atmosphere of trust grows in the community.
The situation could also have been better. Perhaps it could even have been avoided if $100 million had not been cut out of the training allowances this year and another $100 million last year from the Canadian Jobs Strategy, which has cut many young people off from the possibility of advancing themselves by training.
The basic reality underlying both the demonstration and the violence, what I would call the riot, was poverty: poverty among whites and poverty among blacks.
I agree with the member for Windsor-St. Clair that if we allow the U.S.-style economy of every man for himself and devil take the hindmost, then we allow impoverishment and demoralization of a growing part of our population which breeds desperate violence. I see racism as very often and in this case the trigger to violence.
I want to ask why. Why is racism so often the trigger and indeed why does racism exist? I do not believe it is inborn into human beings to dislike somebody who looks different. It is not natural. I see children playing without such discrimination until they learn bad habits from their elders and betters.
In Canada, as well as the United States and Europe, we are changing the immigration rules currently and I think changing in a rather dangerous way. We are reducing the rate of acceptance of refugees while the number of refugees in the world is growing, being produced often by the governments of our trading partners.
We are reducing family reunification as a share of immigration. What that amounts to, however unintentionally, is reducing the acceptance of persons of colour as immigrants to Canada. This helps to remind Canada's visible minorities and our first nations that they belong ethnically to the oppressed majority of the world's peoples. In other words, it is part of racism in the world.
I think the source of that racism is not completely mysterious. It has a great deal to do with five centuries of white empire, empire run by the people of Europe, violent conquest of the other continents, massacres, looting of the wealth, and enslavement of the people who were not massacred and the violent continuing oppression even in the present years as in Central America and in the Persian Gulf.
There is a UN report on development which points out that the richest fifth of the world's population has 82.7 per cent of the world's goods and services to enjoy, 81 per cent of the world's trade, 94 per cent of commercial lending, 80 per cent of domestic savings, 80 per cent of domestic investment, and of course it means a miserable fraction is left for the four-fifths of the world's population to starve on.
In other words, the people of my race and my origin in the British Isles are causing a great deal of misery in the world by our use of those people for our wealth.
May 5, 1992

Another way of describing it is that about $50 billion, give or take a few billion, comes every year net from south to north in our world to the northern countries in the debts that we claim they owe us after we have taken their gold, silver, timber, crops, and their slave labour. We write the accounts in such a way that they owe us about $1 trillion and we take net revenue from them after all the aid and all the investment that goes to their countries. They pay us about $50 billion and their children starve or grow up malnourished if they grow up at all, as a result of the debt we have laid on them.
In the last four decades most of the world's wars have been fought in the south: Asia, Africa, South America. Millions of people have been killed with weapons sent to them by the white countries. Those people are the world's majority whom we exploit. Those are the ones now recognized by the visible minorities and the first nations of Canada as their kin; kin not only in an ethnic sense but in the sense of being treated as oppressed people by the white races of the world. My point is that we must struggle against racism in Canada. Everybody who has spoken agrees with this. Those who did not have a chance to speak this night would agree as well. Everyone in this House agrees that we must struggle against racism. But we must also agree to struggle against poverty in Canada which breeds racism as a symptom.
We must also agree that there will be no success in this struggle except as we struggle to end the white empire, European and North American principally, throughout the world. We must end the impoverishment and oppression of the world's majority people who are the people of colour. These are the people who are being used for our wealth. Some of these people would like to come and share the wealth we have taken from their countries. These are the people against whom Europe and North America are raising immigration barriers year by year. We must understand the connection between what we do abroad and what happens in Toronto.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been awakened by events of the past week in Los Angeles and yesterday in Toronto. I am sure
people right across this country have a new sense of awareness about how much racism is a part of our lives.
We have been awakened to the tragedy of violent riots precipitated by feelings of racism which, undoubtedly, were an expression of the frustration and anger of young people, in particular, who have little hope.
Violence such as we saw in Toronto must not be condoned. As many speakers have said, we must support actions to deal with it. It must be seen by all of us as a symptom of deeper ills, of poverty, of lack of education and of unemployment. It certainly reflects the frustration of young people of colour, in particular, who feel they are in a society where systemic discrimination and racism are a fact of life and that they have little or no opportunity for the future.
It happened in Toronto and Los Angeles but let us not kid ourselves in other parts of Canada. It could also happen in our communities.
It started in Toronto with the shooting of a black man by police who possibly had no alternative. There have been too many examples of shootings of blacks in Toronto and a great racism against black citizens in Halifax.
Our justice system has a double standard for aboriginals and people of colour. The government must act now to stop racism. Minorities are frustrated and angered by the inequalities they see and experience in their daily lives. We must not tolerate criminal responses but we must understand the causes of the anger and violence that we saw expressed yesterday and last week.
We must deal with unemployment and poverty and not just talk about statistics. We must deal with economic and social programs that will open opportunities for young people and, in particular, create jobs.
We must feed hungry children in inner city schools but their parents must have opportunities to work with pride, dignity and respect.
As Canadians we must not be complacent. We take too much pride in thinking that we are very accepting and that we do not discriminate. We should be outraged at events in our history, past and present, that discriminated against our neighbours and against fellow citizens across Canada.

The Manitoba Native Justice Commission documented deeply embedded and institutionalized racism against aboriginal persons as did the Donald Marshall
case in Nova Scotia.
In my province of British Columbia, we have a history of overt racism starting with the Komagata Mam incident, the denial of the right to vote for Asians and the discriminatory, racist Chinese head tax and exclusion act. Japanese Canadian citizens were interned in my riding at the PNE grounds.
Now we have neo-Nazis and skinheads preaching hate, burning crosses and operating hate hot lines. Of course, these are a few people who are instigating such racist activities. In the past it was racist legislation but citizens no longer will tolerate that on the whole. We cannot be complacent and we cannot say that we are an accepting, non-racist society that treats all people equally and with respect.
Let us hope that yesterday's events, like last year's tragic events at Oka, will bring a new public awareness that racism is a sickness that can and must be stamped out.
I call on parliamentarians on all sides of the House to work together to support a proactive plan of action to eliminate racism. We must all support the government in acting now to implement a plan of action which could include the following eight points.
We must establish a judicial inquiry into racism and into police minority relations and the justice system. We must amend the Criminal Code, particularly the fleeing felon rule, and amend the parts of the Criminal Code that would criminalize racism and also deal with hate propaganda.
We must strengthen the Canadian Human Rights Commission to effectively deal with complaints and systemic discrimination and racism. They must have more resources to do this.
We must proclaim Bill C-63 which we passed in the last House and establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation with a strong mandate to eliminate racism. I appeal to the minister, in recognition of the events of this week, to press his cabinet to do this without delay and at least begin a start on the Race Relations Foundation which is to be located in Toronto.
We must reinstate and expand the Court Challenges Program so that minorities can clarify their rights under
the charter. We must protect minority rights under the Constitution, as my colleague has said over and over again, by shielding section 15 of the charter from the notwithstanding clause and including racial and ethnic equality rights in changes to section 27.
We must increase cross-cultural training. It should undoubtedly be for all public servants to set an example for other governments. Mandatory employment equity should be implemented, not just in agencies doing business with the government, but in federal public departments of governments themselves. We need realistic targets to employ visible minority staff based on availability rates.
Finally, we must immediately acknowledge the past racism in our Canadian history. I think we should do this, first of all, by redressing the racist Chinese head tax and exclusion act which discriminated against people because of their race. We must learn from the past.
I appeal to the government, to the minister and to other members of the House to take a proactive position now. Let us not wait for the next election. Canadians who believe in justice and fairness demand concrete action by their members of Parliament and by their government.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on a subject that is fundamental to Canada's future.
Canadians do not see themselves as belonging to a racist society. In fact our ideal is to respect one another and provide equal opportunities for everyone. However, much remains to be done before this is actually the case in everyday life. Perhaps we will never achieve this ideal situation, since ideals are, by definition, impossible to realize. However we must always go the extra mile, and that is what we are all trying to do.
Some members of our society feel left out. They feel they have no place in our society and have the impression they are a target for injustice. The state of the economy has brought about changes that are a real challenge to each and every one of us.
In fact, these difficult times increase tension and can lead to family violence, violence against women and intolerance. Those who are already victims of discrimina-
May 5, 1992

tion are doubly disadvantaged, but please understand that no situation is an excuse for resorting to violence.
Consequently, as a government, as individuals and as communities, we must try very hard to eliminate social and economic barriers that inevitably lead to despair, and sometimes even to riots.
More than ever before we must pool our skills and experience to find creative solutions to our problems.
The federal government must above all listen to what Canadians have to say, especially the groups most often subject to discrimination and exclusion. We are constantly in touch with representatives of ethno-cultural groups and visible minorities, to look for long-term solutions and deal with crisis situations.
We invited these groups to join in the consultation process on the Canadian Constitution. The Department of Employment and Immigration consults regularly with ethnocultural groups on immigration levels and the federal strategy for immigrant integration. Through these programs, Health and Welfare Canada is also alerted to the specific needs of cultural communities. Recently the department was advised by these groups on the accessibility of social services.
Last year during the gulf war, Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada made a point of ensuring that Canadians with roots in the Middle East were not treated unfairly. We appealed to eminent members of the Arab, Islamic and Jewish communities in Canada to let us know their needs and discuss what should be done. We also got in touch with our provincial colleagues and municipal authorities, religious leaders, police authorities, colleges and universities and asked them to help maintain the climate of respect we needed.
Thanks to the parliamentary day of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the government and opposition parties had a chance to listen to the concerns of ethnocultural groups. Each department was asked to respond to the questions that were raised and to discuss possible solutions.
In every part of the country there are regular meetings with ethnocultural communities and visible minorities in order to remain aware of needs and priorities. However, Mr. Speaker, actions speak even louder than words.
After the events in Halifax in the summer of 1991 the government launched a tripartite federal-provincial-municipal committee which, with the representatives of the black community, made specific recommendations on education, the media, justice, the police, tourism, arts and culture. Thirty days later each level of government submitted its response for each of the areas targeted. In the weeks to come we will report on what has been done so far and decide what must be done in the near future.
Similarly the federal government, together with its partners in all sectors, has implemented action plans to eliminate discrimination and help all citizens take a full and active part in Canadian society.
Last week the Canadian Centre for Police Race Relations opened its doors in Ottawa. The centre provides practical information, resource materials and expert advice on issues such as cross-cultural awareness training, police recruitment, police/community liaison and research.
The centre was established as part of our efforts to improve relations between the police and minorities across Canada. This is a government priority. In 1989 we consulted representatives of the provinces, territories, police, visible minority communities and native people in order to develop a national action plan on the police and these various groups.
Five essential points came out of it: intercultural training, recruiting, community involvement, information and the establishment of a committee of deputy ministers on police and relations with minorities. Our efforts in the past three years have dealt with each of these five points.
The government also encourages community groups throughout Canada to fight racism and to promote intercultural understanding.
Nationally, 10 organizations representing visible minorities received financial assistance to discuss their concerns and help the community fight discrimination. Much is being done and of course a great deal still remains to be done.
If Canadians are asked we see that all Canadians support the government's efforts to raise public awareness. A nation-wide poll conducted in July 1991 by the Angus Reid group shows the following facts: 89 per cent of Canadians support activities to eliminate racial dis-

crimination by informing the public; 85 per cent are in favour of helping immigrants acquire the knowledge and skills they need to fit into Canadian society; 83 per cent are for helping all Canadians adapt to ethnic, cultural and racial diversity.
We will agree that the federal government's activities that were mentioned previously are in line with the concerns that Canadians expressed in the poll. According to the Angus Reid survey most Canadians think that multiculturalism is an advantage for Canadian society. Indeed 77 per cent feel that multiculturalism enriches Canadian culture; and 65 per cent believe that a society made up of varied ethnic and cultural groups is better able to face new problems as they arise. However, to realize the potential benefits of multiculturalism, we must find a way to create an open society. We cannot afford not to fight racism and discrimination.
Most Canadians recognize that there is a problem in Canada. Unfortunately recent events seem to show that they are right. Racism is everyone's business. It is up to each one of us to end it. The federal government recognizes this reality. Through its actions, the government has shown that it is ready to do its part, but it cannot work in isolation. It needs partners in all quarters: education, health, social services, justice and police services, all other levels of government and of course all Canadians.
In this spirit the government has shown its leadership. It is ready to continue to work with its partners in the same direction. The consequences of doing nothing would be enormous. Who could want to run such a risk? An open, just and equitable society will bring us considerable benefits of inestimable value. We must work together on building it.
Once we have said all that, Canadians must also be able to treat human values with the respect that these values demand and require. Too often the media and the environment react to advertising and social pressure and see these values in economic terms that downgrade these basic values. Every one of us must be able to return to these values, our scale of values, and, as with our traditions or our forests and trees, deal with the roots much more than with the leaves.


Mr. Caccia:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may find a disposition in this House to remove the time limit of midnight so as to permit all interested speakers to participate in the debate should it be required to go beyond midnight. In so doing I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to sense the feeling of the House concerning the disposition of removing the limit of midnight so that we can plan accordingly.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we would certainly have no objection to hearing from all members on this veiy serious and important matter. We would make the same proviso that applies in the current House order, which is that there be no dilatory motions or quorum calls, and the same conditions that have applied to the original House order would be continued on this new requirement.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the proposal to allow everybody who wishes to speak on this the time to do so, and of course the basic rules of the Standing Orders should apply.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to give all members who want to speak on the motion an opportunity to make a speech?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this evening's emergency debate. We have all been around the events that manifested themselves yesterday evening in Toronto. I should say at the beginning that the events that glued many Canadians to their television sets in Toronto last night was not Los Angeles. The question that should be asked is if there was not the situation in L.A. would we have seen what we saw last night in Toronto? The answer to that question is probably not.
At the same time, as other members have said, perhaps it was a tiny echo of what transpired to the south of us. We should not pretend that no tensions exist or that no frustrations exist among Canadians of various ethnocultural and racial persuasions because there are shattered dreams and aspirations and a clear lack of hope and confidence among Canadians in various communities.
We see that from time to time. Yesterday was another example, but it is certainly not new.
May 5, 1992

In fact almost a year ago in Halifax we saw very serious, divisive, and emotional feelings come to the fore in the black Canadian community of that city and province.
It should also be said, in so far as it involves the police, that police officers are also not in an easy predicament. In today's society in major urban centres that particular responsibility is a very risky one and a very dangerous one. It is often a very thankless job. It has nothing to do with the racial component at all. It simply has to do with a job that is becoming tougher because of the wave of crime that seems to be washing ashore day in and day out.
Equally it is also not easy to be a minority in this country or anywhere in the world. That is doubly so when that minority happens to be a visible minority. For instance, studies done over the last 15 years consistently show that a core of 12 to 16 per cent of Canadians are intolerant of those who are different from them.
A 1984 study by the Urban Alliance on Race Relations and the Social Planning Council of Metro Toronto showed that white job applicants receive three job offers to every one for black Canadians who had similar qualifications. A 1988 study by the Quebec Human Rights Commission found that more than twice as many blacks as whites were turned down when looking for rental accommodation.
A 1988 Canadian recruiters guide survey found that all job agency recruiters and 80 per cent of corporate head hunters received requests to specifically discriminate against minorities of all kinds. A total of 94 per cent say they rejected job seekers simply on the basis of the colour of the applicants.
Perhaps as a contradiction the Angus Reid poll recently found with respect to our multicultural-multiracial policy of this government and preceding governments since 1971 that 91 per cent of all respondents found that a true and vibrant multicultural-multiracial policy was important in binding our country and its people together, and 63 per cent supported the continuation of that policy.
I suppose it speaks to who we are as a people. Canadians have their roots in all corners of this globe. Those Canadians were asked to help in the building of this country. Those Canadians are prepared, willing and able to put their shoulders with other Canadians to ensure that we build that type of Canadian society.
5. Q 52
When Rodney King suffered some 50 blows in 80 seconds I am sure that the vast majority of Canadians felt a sense of sorrow and repugnance at what was being brought to bear on a fellow human being. I would vouch that most Americans felt that way, but a jury did not. I suppose that triggered what we have been witnessing and experiencing for the last number of days.
In terms of what happened in Toronto, we should be cognizant of the fact that we are talking about a series of complex but nonetheless realistic root causes. When the various forces are brought together the negative impact is quite clear for everyone to see.
In the last number of years we have seen an increase in violent crime of over 40 per cent. Drug abuse and drug trafficking is at an all-time high. The UN report suggested that we have the highest rate of drug related crime of any industrialized country.
I see it myself in my own riding, in the various neighbourhoods where we seem to be losing the battle against drugs. Those youths are black, brown, and yellow. They are English and they are Italian. When 14-year-olds in various parts of my riding, in broad daylight, are doing the running for crack and cocaine there is something terribly wrong with the basis of our society.
Officially, Toronto has 13,000 unemployed people. Montreal has basically the same number. In Ontario we have close to 20 per cent youth unemployment and in Quebec it is 19.9 per cent. The Economic Council of Canada told us last week in a report on education that almost 30 per cent of our youth do not finish secondary school.
The various forces that come together create that weight on the shoulders of Canadians. Unfortunately, when we add the powerful dimension of colour and visibility, those numbers and statistics become aggravated. It is unfortunate that the whole question of colour and visibility has the effect that it does. It is not by intention, but we have to recognize that it is there.
I do not want to sound alarmist because this country is still a country that has managed to resolve its differences on the whole very well. There are millions of potential Canadians who would give their left arm to be in the Chamber where I presently have the honour of speaking. We know that. We must recognize that. We must not exaggerate but at the same time, if we continue to be a country that seeks new immigrants, and we are, then we

May 5, 1992
also have to be prepared to try to resolve the challenges and problems that are within our borders in a better way.
I do not think we are looking for Herculean tasks or solutions. Essentially we have to know in a very pragmatic way that whether white or black, whether English or French, whether Ukrainian or Italian, we all strive for the same basic fundamental qualities that we seek in our lives, a family, a home, a job, a lifestyle that is somewhat comfortable and enjoyable, and a future.
When we leave this Chamber we return to that world. In fact that world gives us comfort from the political battles that take place here. What does the construction worker who starts at six in the morning, finishes at six o'clock at night, and works six days a week and sometimes works for cash on Sunday look forward to the most? It is going home, opening the door and seeing his wife and kids.
Colour has nothing to do with those aspirations. Being human does. Therefore the challenge for us is not to have another Royal commission. The member for Windsor-St. Clair spoke very eloquently and very passionately. One of the suggestions he made was for a Royal commission or an inquiry.
We have had reports. We have had the report Equality Now\ and the report on employment equity. We have the report Equality for All. We have been studied upside-down and across this country already, both on unity and on ethnicity.
We should not be looking for more commissions to be travelling across the country which also lend themselves to false expectations, emotional outbursts and probably a community that says: "Hold on a second. I was asked to make this report three years ago. I made that submission two years ago. I made a recommendation one year ago. I wrote a letter to the minister a month ago".
There has been enough input into the system. We are cognizant of sometimes what is wrong with the system and more important what is needed in order to correct it. I put 12 ideas that do not require a commission of inquiry but 12 things I think we can do and do quickly, easily, and in a united way.
We need to restore the study begun but not completed by the Law Reform Commission on minorities, the justice system and our policing system. The unfortunate part is that we eliminated the Law Reform Commission in the last federal budget.
Let us strengthen employment equity that is at the root cause in terms of lack of jobs and lack of proper remuneration in comparison to one another both on gender and ethnicity.
Let us restore the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. I salute the minister of multiculturalism and Citizenship for his efforts in terms of redress to Japanese Canadians. It was to be concerned with the national fabric and not just one particular ethnocultural group.
Let us restore the Court Challenges Program that allowed minorities an opportunity without worrying about finances to defend their rights before our court system and our judiciary.
Let us amend the Canadian Human Rights Act allowing for reasonable accommodation of the rights and interests again of minorities.
Let us promote and defend the concept of multiculturalism. Let us not only give in to the economic downturns which tend to place the blame all on the doorstep of that policy. I think that policy while it scares some certainly does much good which sometimes does not get reported. I wonder where this country would be without the day in and day out tolerance that policy tries to teach and educate. Would our race relations rapport not be worse off if we did not have a policy supported by the federal, provincial and even municipal governments?
Let us be more aggressive in terms of youth employment and training programs in the face of youth unemployment statistics. When we look at our television sets we do not see senior citizens protesting. We see the faces of young people who are also wondering about the dead end facing them.
Why not bring together the federal and provincial Solicitors General to talk about the immediate, practical action that can come.
May 5, 1992

Perhaps it is time that the Constitution recognize the multicultural and multi-racial nature of Canadian society in a strong way, in the same way and in the same place when we talk about the other three pillars of society: the French fact, the English fact, and the aboriginal fact. Would that be placing everybody at the front of the constitutional bus and not relegating some to the back or on the next bus altogether?
Let us pay attention to the inner cities, the urban centres with respect to our social and economic spheres of programs. This is not to exclude the rural areas but to recognize the particular problems that give rise to yesterday's events are also in large measure an urban phenomenon in which more and more Canadians with each passing year are living.
Let us amend the Narcotics Control Act with respect to the proceeds of drug seizures, millions of dollars each year that go into the general revenues of the federal government. Let us have a formula that shares those revenues with the federal government and with the leading frontline organizations from the community and the police forces that do the battling of that drug war in the alleyways while we sleep at night. They are losing the war because they are out gunned, out equipped and out-financed.
Now that we are getting into an election footing, why do the three national parties not recommit themselves and encourage candidates of all walks of life to seek positions in ridings that those respective parties can win. Then when people come to the gallery to watch the proceedings of the House of Commons they will not get the picture that the Canada of 1992 is made up of a white Anglo-Saxon male dominated population. This place too has to be more reflective of a Canada of 1992 rather than 1492. That is a political challenge that each of our parties should take upon itself.
In conclusion, we have the makings of a solution already within our system. We do not need another study. We do not need a travelling committee. We also do not need another report that is going to collect further dust and further alienate the already dampened
expectations of a Canadian population that anticipates and expects a future for all.
I salute the efforts of trying to have a constructive and productive dialogue with the leadership of the black Canadian community and the federal and provincial governments as took place the other day.
There also needs to take place a dialogue outside of that visible community, because the problem is not only necessarily with the converted, but the problem is also with a country that has to manifest and indicate the latitude, the flexibility and the tolerance to allow all Canadians to participate in the opportunities that have been granted to the majority of Canadians.
We will only be as good as we are in the human rapport that ties this country from one coast to the other.
This is not really a new challenge. In general it has challenged societies in the world for decades. We, thank God, have managed quite nicely, but we also have to recognize that the opportunities and greatness of Canada have not always worked for all Canadians. It will cost us nothing to share the fruits of this country with all of our neighbours, be they black or be they white. If we do, we will have a better and greater country.
I know in that type of society my children will fare better and easier than if we were to play the politics of exclusion. The more we include, the greater this country will be.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this debate tonight, ashamed, embarrassed and offended. I am ashamed and embarrassed that the incidents which took place in Toronto last night took place in my country. I am more ashamed and embarrassed that the racism that lies at the root of such reactions as last night exists. It exists in an all-pervasive mode in the city I love and I represent, in the province I love and I represent, and in the country I love and I represent.
I am more offended at the reaction of the Government of Canada in this debate. I am offended with the Minister of Justice. I am offended with the minister of multiculturalism and citizenship. I am offended with the number of ministers on the government side of the House who stood in this debate and made pious mouth-ings when our streets are going up in flames.

I am offended that I heard all of the good things that we are supposed to talk about, when we talk about equality between the races and between the cultures, from a government that cancelled the Law Reform Commission. It cancelled it, I might say, before it had time to finish a study on minorities and the justice system. However Conservatives are all in favour of good relations between the races and the cultures. I do not believe it and I doubt that my constituents and the people of Canada believe it either.
I am offended because this same government with those same ministers stood there tonight and made all those wonderful statements about how we must learn to live together and how we must make this a better place. This is the same government that has not given us the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.
I am offended to hear from those ministers and to hear from those members about how important this is to the future of Canada, the future of our children and the future of the human race from a government that cancelled the Court Challenges Program. It cancelled it. It is gone. The program that was supposed to give that extra special lift and assistance to disadvantaged groups, to black Canadians, to visible minority Canadians other than blacks, to women, and that is the government that we have. No matter what it says in this debate, these are the things that it has done.
The people of Canada know that these are the things that the government has done. I hope that the people of Canada will rise up and say: "Enough, enough".
I represent a province that has had a problem with racism since before it was a province, since before Canada was a country. Blacks first came to Nova Scotia as slaves, to New France in 1750. Abolition did not take place until 1833, but they stayed. They stayed and their ranks were augmented because Nova Scotia was the last stop on the underground railroad when courageous slaves broke away from their bonds in the southern U.S. and made it to Canada. They stayed and they were augmented as well by members of the United Empire Loyalist blacks who came after the American Revolution. They were United Empire Loyalists. They were given some grants, not as much as white people were given, of course not. They were not given the good land that white people were given. We have in Nova Scotia the descendants of United Empire Loyalists who are
proud of that heritage and proud of their land. They live in counties like Halifax County and Halifax city, Digby County, Guysborough County, Cape Breton County, all over the province of Nova Scotia.
Black Nova Scotians are part and parcel of the history and heritage of Nova Scotia. They have suffered and they have been discriminated against and enough is enough.
I am ashamed to hear a friend of mine who left my city, our city, 20 years ago and when she came back she said to me: "You know my people are still invisible in the city of Halifax". I am equally ashamed that another friend of mine, a black community activist in Halifax, when she browses through an expensive store in the city of Halifax, is closely monitored by the sales clerks because she is black and what is she doing in an expensive store. I am ashamed that this happens in my country and I want it to stop.
It will not stop if we just sit around and say that we must be better behaved. We must love each other. We must understand that people are equal. Equality does not grow in an arid atmosphere. This government has created an arid atmosphere by cancelling the very programs, the only programs, that could make equality bloom in Canada.
I am ashamed and I am embarrassed and I want it to stop. I do not want what happened in Toronto to happen again. I do not want it to happen in Montreal.
I sure do not want it to happen in the streets of the cities of Halifax and Dartmouth. Members of the black community do not want it to happen, but when the frustration level, particularly the frustration level with young blacks, rises as it must rise in the face of this kind of racism, what can we expect?
There are young blacks in Nova Scotia who cannot expect to get any kind of a job, let alone a job that might be commensurate with their training and talent, young blacks in Nova Scotia are discriminated against as a matter of course, young blacks in Nova Scotia, and this is the greatest tragedy of all, see the only way to earn a living is to get involved with the drug trade.
I know my time is running out, but I will close with one story that is very tragic. There are many tragic stories in Nova Scotia that are based on racism. I remember one young man who had a promising career as an athlete. It is
May 5, 1992

fortunate that one of the areas where racism is not so rampant is the area of athletics.
As he started his promising career, something happened to him that can happen to anybody regardless of race, colour or creed. He was injured and his athletic career was cut off. He had two choices. He could go to work for minimum wage as a cleaner, and there is nothing wrong with that job but that was all that was available to him, or he could get involved in the drug trade and make a whole lot of money.
That was what he did. Before he was 35 years old, he was gunned down on a Halifax street. This is happening more and more and more. In my city, my beautiful city, people should be able to live in harmony and in peace, there should be jobs, training and a future for us and for our children regardless of background, colour, religion or any of those things that do not matter. My city is becoming one of the worst drug infested cities on the North American continent.
Although I am offended at the government, I do not necessarily blame it all on it. If we do not get those institutions back, if we do not get the kind of compassionate and sensible government that does something for people so that they can live decent lives then we the majority of Canadians are going to deserve every single thing we get.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to say to my colleague from Halifax, as a seatmate of mine across that great harbour of Halifax, I do not know of any people who have worked as hard as she has for minority groups, not just blacks and the disempowered.
She has worked on women's issues. She has always been there to be the voice of those who have been dispossessed and have had their voice silenced. I count myself very lucky to have her as a seatmate, but I count myself even luckier to have her as a friend and as a very, very wise counsel.
The words that she has just expressed are heartfelt. She does not have to contrive them, she does not have to write notes on it. She has fought most of her life against the scourge of racism.
It is easy for us to talk about racism when we are white and when we belong to the majority of society. It is a lot
more difficult to try to understand the sting of racism. It is a lot more difficult to understand when we are in our jobs why in the name of God we do not do something about it.
Racism is perhaps the greatest sin that we can perpetrate on our fellow human beings. We do not judge people by what is in here, by their skills, by their abilities or by their character. Racism is that awful, awful, devastating, damaging, evil through which we judge people by the colour of their skin, by the religion that they practice or by the language that they speak. Away back in beautiful pristine Nova Scotia, back in Dartmouth, the other side of the harbour we see the scourge of racism on a daily basis. Some of my constituents do not like me to remind them of that.
I said in this House before and I will say it as long as I have a breath in my body, that every time racism is seen it has to be confronted and it has to be snuffed out. It is not an easy subject to talk about because people get kind of queasy. Nobody really wants to be part of the problem and they do not want to be reminded over and over again that by their inaction and by their acquiescence they are a part of the problem.
I count myself extremely lucky. I represent a wonderful part of Canada in Dartmouth. I have said it before, it is on the record, that one of the things I am most proud of is that I represent the communities of Preston and North Preston, and Cherrybrook which are the oldest indigenous black communities in Canada. They are six miles from the border of the largest metropolitan area in Atlantic Canada. Have they shared in the greatness of that area? No, they have not.
They have been in this country longer than my people have been here, yet I am accepted as a Nova Scotian. I am accepted as a Nova Scotian whose heritage matters in that province. My people have been in this country for less than 100 years. Nobody questions my place of origin or whether or not I belong. That is not a part of it.
However, in the communities of Nova Scotia, Halifax, in North Preston and East Preston, as my colleague said, it has been over 200 years since those blacks came to Nova Scotia. Their heritage is rich. It is just as damned important as my heritage is as a Scot and it is just as important as the Acadian heritage in Nova Scotia and just as important as the British heritage. However we still have lessons to learn.

S. ft 52
We have a black cultural centre which, albeit was built by government money, cannot get a plugged nickel from Parks Canada to get somebody to come in and help put up the displays properly. They do not get any money from Parks Canada to preserve their history, but be damned if you go over and look at the Halifax Citadel, there are plenty of federal dollars in there to preserve that part of our heritage. There is plenty of money down in Annapolis Royal and plenty of money in Louisbourg and plenty of money at the Citadel in Quebec. There is damned plenty of money here in Ottawa but there is no money available for that type of thing from Parks Canada.
We deal with those communities. The Prestons are true communities. They have been there so long that everybody is related to everybody. When you walk into that community and if you know five people, you know 500. They have suffered under the scourge of racism for so long, my God some of them have even come to accept it and they do not even challenge it any more.
When did the community of North Preston, about 3,500 people, six miles away from the largest metropolitan area in Atlantic Canada, get its sewer and water? It got it two and a half years ago. The last community of its size in the province of Nova Scotia to get centralized sewer and water was the community of North Preston, and only after the water became a health issue.
The community of North Preston is now fighting a battle and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism has been a great help in this one. They are fighting a battle today to stop a dump from going on historic black lands.
Last summer my colleague from Halifax indicated there was a problem. There was a riot in Halifax. As a result of that riot, community groups and three levels of government got together and came up with over a 90 point set of proposals on how to deal with racism.
Proposal No. 10 said: "In recognition of the fact that it is historically founded in fact that black communities in Nova Scotia have historically been the recipient of the white garbage dumps". It has happened down in Afric-ville in the north end of Halifax. It is happening in Crichton Park in Dartmouth. You cannot go to a black community in the province of Nova Scotia that has not been the recipient of somebody else's garbage. When the white communities did not want it they gave it to the
black community. For some reason the black communities were not as worthy and were not as "clean" as the non-black communities.
Recommendation 10 of that committee report said that there would be no more dumpsites on black township sites. Less than one year later the municipality of the county of Halifax selected an area outside of North Preston, on historic black lands, for the site of the new metropolitan area dump.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Ronald MacDonald: Absolute shame. We wonder why blacks say that even in 1992 we are still not listening. White Canada is still not listening. How much louder do they have to say it. Blacks say: "You still are not listening. You have not understood".
It grieves me greatly when I hear comments from people saying: "Well you know those blacks. They are always complaining anyway" or "those blacks, they are always so lazy and they really do not want to work".
Those blacks are my friends. I resent those statements coming from any individual as I would resent the statement of somebody unduly criticizing a member of my family. It is time. It must stop.
The Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship is here and I want to publicly thank him. He has provided support for the Preston community when support was desperately needed. I know that sometimes it is not always easy to convince some of your colleagues of the appropriateness of your actions.
Time after time when I have had some difficulties the minister has come forward and he has always had an ear to listen. If there was something that he could do, if it was nothing other than moral support, he did it. That is important.
The black community is not ruled by people of the same colour. It is ruled by people who look like me. We are white. We have to go that extra distance to show that we do understand and that we do care.
I have worked in my community in Preston. I certainly would never condone violent response to the situation that minority groups find themselves in, never. That is not the way to do it.
May 5, 1992

Think of it. A young black living in my area of Dartmouth-and I know this because I did a survey, it cost $15,000 two and a half years ago-can reasonably expect to make 42 per cent less than a young white man of the same age. A young black will probably be forced out of school earlier because racism is systemic down there. It hurts like hell. It takes away your self-pride and it must be erased. We have to get by this, by God.
We are destroying peoples' lives solely because of the colour of their skin. These are people who could contribute to society if they felt at home in school. God knows, maybe they would find a cure for cancer. However the school system is systemically driving them out.
They do not want special treatment, they just want equal treatment. They do not want more than anybody, they only seek to be included. If we were all blinded tomorrow we would not have a problem with the colour of somebody's skin. We would judge them by the quality of their life, their character, and the giving and caring in their soul.
In conclusion I want to urge this House at every opportunity to face racism head on, to snuff it out and to allow every Canadian, regardless of the colour of their skin, to fully participate in society to the extent of their abilities.
I want to urge everybody in this House to join hands across this aisle, where there is all too often combat, and for once say: "We can and we must get rid of racism in Canadian society".


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my speech this evening by telling you that I do not believe for a moment that the Canadian society is a racist society. I know that after what has happened in the United States and last night in Toronto, we may be tempted to say: "We are like the Americans, we too are having racial problems". In a way I am an American. I have relinquished my American citizenship to become a Canadian citizen and because I saw in Canada a different place to be. Tonight is not the night I will tell you that we are like them. It is not true. Not so in the sense that Canada, with its francophone and anglophone peoples, is a tolerant nation which understands
the requirements that come with several races, even those of what we call multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism is impossible in the United States. It has even been said that the American melting pot had melted down. It is true in the sense that in the United States, instead of trying to get citizens involved, or to favour their integration, the Americans have systematically shoved them aside. They have systematically created several classes of citizens. If there were only one or two classes that would be nothing new, but there are a second, a third and a fourth, depending on which class of immigrants one belongs to.
We must first understand that Canada is not the United States. As my colleague from Windsor mentioned earlier, Los Angeles is not Toronto; our problems are different.
As a former American, an American who worked with associates of Martin Luther King, who spent three years in a college for black Americans, who fought for the recognition of the rights of Black people in the United States, I remember well attending Bowie State College in the State of Maryland. I have seen the awful face of institutionalized racism which manifested itself first by refusing to recognize the right to vote of individuals; second, racism which constantly attempted to intimidate black people so that they would not vote, that is those who were able to prove that they could vote; and, third, racism that took the form of murders. For example, those who killed Martin Luther King did so in a very calculated way.
In Canada the situation is not the same. As a Canadian who is also a former American, I did some research in preparation for this debate, in order to find out what differentiates us. We show our discontent-and this was demonstrated in Toronto-but I ask myself what provoked all this. After watching and listening when I was a member of the Beaudoin-Dobbie Committee on the renewal of our Constitution, I told myself that the Canadian society is not racist. However there are some institutions created by pieces of legislation that go back a long time which are racists. I stress the word racism because I do not like the way this word is used at the drop of a hat. It is a little like the word holocaust. These words tend to lose their impact when they are used so often and not always at the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree and I see I have your attention. I read the legislation we refer to as the Indian Act. I never saw a piece of legislation that was so paternalistic and arrogant, anti-native and quite frankly totalitarian and inhuman. I asked myself how people could survive and even prosper with this kind of legislation.
This is something that must change immediately. Although it may have reflected Canadian reality 100 years ago, today the Canadians across this country will not agree with this legislation. We cannot treat a people like slaves, if we can still use that word-
I remember in the United States we had the benign neglect theory. I think it applies to natives in this country. It may seem rather bizarre to hear a member from Quebec defending native people. That may be so, but the fact is that as members from Quebec or Ontario we must tell the truth. Let us face it, the way natives have been treated in this country by our institutions is racist.
That being said, as far as racism towards blacks in Canada is concerned, I think we do have a problem in Toronto. We certainly do. There is a problem with the Ontario police which seems to want to shoot point blank at anyone who appears to have committed a criminal offence. We know that in 15 years they killed fifteen Blacks. But I do not think we can extrapolate the situation in Toronto and say that there is a problem with blacks across Canada. As far as Toronto is concerned, yes, there is a serious problem. Elsewhere in Canada, and I can talk about Quebec where I come from this is not a joke, but it is rather funny. For instance in Montreal the police tend to kill quite a few whites. Only this year 25 people were killed by police in Montreal and out of those 25, only three were blacks.
Let us keep things in perspective. First of all this is not happening everywhere in Canada. Second, whether the person is black, white, Chinese or Vietnamese, it is unacceptable that members of the police force would first shoot and then say "stop". Some policemen will tell you that they had no choice but to kill someone who had a knife, an offensive weapon, compare that to a revolver. It is not acceptable to say that they were forced to kill someone. Most people who are listening to us will say: "Listen, you can shoot in the leg or in the arm.
Policemen are well trained and they know how to use adequate force to protect their lives".
I am not prepared to accept the fact that Canada behaves like a racist society with coloured people. I am not telling you this with great pride, but it is my finding. We as members of Parliament, must provide you with our findings and we must do so clearly without too many nuances.
When white people walk on a sidewalk and see a black person approaching, say a young well built man full of confidence, who may have a Ph.D., a doctor, a philosopher, a New Democrat or even a Liberal, I am convinced, that many have a certain degree of apprehension: He is coming closer to me. Will he try to do something? Am I in danger? That is problem with steorotyping minority groups.
* However it is not only white people who look at black people with some apprehension in an urban environment. Because of previous experience, and with reason, black people have started to look at the police force in a different way from that of white people. How do we perceive policemen? We feel free to ask them where is the nearest Mac's Milk or Petro-Canada station. For us, a policeman is our friend.
Put yourself in the shoes of a black person around midnight or at one in the morning. As a black person, would you approach a policeman to ask him where is the nearest Mac's Milk? The policeman might give you directions to get there, but he will also ask you what you want to do, and that is a problem. We as a society steorotype people.
As a white person, listening to us, may think it is terrible. White people do not do that; they do not steorotype black people. This is utterly false because it does exist and it is troublesome. We must understand that the same mistrust exist. It is a deeply rooted mistrust of two societies.
But I suggest that this mistrust does not permeate our society, our institutions. It may be the case in the United States where the Black people did not have the right to vote. Fortunately in the 1800s, up until the year 1900, Canada was a terminus on what used to be called the underground railroad for American black slaves who wanted to flee the U.S. and institutionalized racism.
May 5, 1992

I can see in Canada today a countiy looking for direction, looking to do the right thing like welcoming immigrants. At the same time the country wants to rid itself a load we have been carrying since the 1800s, a load of racism toward the natives and a load of wanting to stereotype people of other racial background because we had such a poor understanding of these people.
This may surprise you, Mr. Speaker, but there are a lot of myths about the other ethnic groups in our society. It is only by living with, accepting and welcoming these people that we can destroy these myths. I am proud that Canada, like all western countries, welcomes immigrants. At the same time this welcome is somewhat schizophrenic. We do not mind letting them in, but at the same time we make it so difficult for them with all the administrative hurdles that in the end it turns into something of an administrative nightmare that deters quite a few potential immigrants.
In closing, we have had a good debate tonight, a debate dealing with what distinguishes us from the United States as well as with the extent to which we can change our legislation and the way we look at other groups. As a Quebecer and a proud Quebecer, especially having been the right of native peoples to self-determination recognized in Quebec since 1985,1 find that we are not doing too good in Canada. But things are not as bad as in the States yet. We could set an example by applying ourselves to accepting ethnic and native groups the way they are. They are Canadians.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me congratulate the hon. member for Trinity- Spadina on his initiative. It offers us an opportunity to put forward some thoughts on the demonstration in Toronto.
My intervention will not be long. I would like to explore the root causes leading to the demonstrations and to outline possible remedial action.
Let me first start with the root causes as I see them. We have to go back. To understand the situation we must look at last Saturday and remember why and how the demonstration was triggered. The root of all that developed over the weekend and can be traced to a back alley in west Toronto as a result of a chase of drug dealers whose existence is only made possible because there are drug addicted people who consume drugs and who therefore require the services of drug dealers.
I submit that without users, without consumers, drug dealers would not survive very long. There would be no shootings taking place in the back alleys of Toronto without this phenomenon of drug consumption. Therefore it seems to me that the problem is not really the dealer. The dealer is just a link. The problem is that we are not adequately addressing the real problem, namely the consumer. What I am saying is that inadequate attention is being paid to ways of reducing the consumption. It is the consumption of drugs that must be addressed.
Two American presidents, back to back, so to speak, both President Reagan and President Bush announced that they would eradicate drugs in North America. They announced substantial sums behind this policy; but the failure of the policy so far, it seems to me, is that they invested most of the effort and the resources into pursuing the producers and the dealers. They put very little resources, effort and energy into tackling the problem from the perspective of the consumer, the perspective of the addict.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree that should we be successful in dealing with the consumer, should we be successful in reducing consumption and eradicating consumption, in the long term the producers would have no market and the dealers would have no existence.
Starting from this premise, I would like to go further into the root causes of consumption. From observation and from the reports made by community workers in the field the answers are manyfold as to what the root causes are. They are related to unemployment, poor housing, lack of education and employable skills. They are related to all those elements, the presence of which would give the individual a sense of dignity, a sense of purpose and a sense of direction. The root causes are related to the lack of access to adequate rehabilitation and to adequate community services.

May 5, 1992
It is very important that we focus our attention on the importance of prevention through all means available, mainly those of education. At the present time we are in a phase where we are chasing the producer and the trafficker. As a result, as I mentioned earlier, we are paying infinitesimal attention, a fraction of our resources on anticipating, on preventing this phenomenon. Even when we pay attention to the curing of those who are addicted, the resources are lacking.
There is also a strong indication that the drug addiction phenomenon is linked to family situations. It is the result of youth finding themselves without a real home. It is the result of a vacuum that seems to exist in certain families where the home is just a physical shelter but where there is no warmth, no sense of mutual support, understanding and direction.
So far I have explored the root causes that lead to the present situation, to the increasing consumption of drugs and the concomitant results. We have to ask ourselves why are we at this stage, facing this phenomenon of chasing the drug traffickers in the middle of the night, of police authorities finding themselves unable to cope with the phenomenon because the human resources are not there. I cannot help concluding that much can be traced to the inadequacy of our social programs.
Under the best of circumstances our social programs would have to be intensified no doubt, but we find ourselves at the present time facing the consequences of cuts in federal spending in the social field. I am referring to housing, particularly social and co-op housing, I am referring to child care, I am referring to apprenticeship, I am referring to youth training, job creation and the like.
In other words, opportunities are being reduced with respect to access to employment, with respect to improved incomes, with respect to relief from the burdens of taxation, you name it. As a result, it seems to me that the urban environment is screaming for more and more attention because in Canadian cities the situation is deteriorating. From a human perspective the urban environment is increasingly polluted. We must address the situation in terms of a human ecology which requires attention. Therefore the question is: What are the remedies?
I will conclude in a few moments by examining the remedies which flow from the examination of the root causes which actually are the flip side of the same coin.
It seems to me that we must concentrate our efforts on educating the population, and particularly the young population, intensively on the consequences of drug use.
We must prevent addiction and rehabilitate the addicted person. The efforts presently out there in the various communities are obviously not adequate. There are beautiful initiatives. There are even some heroic initiatives of very dedicated men and women who are active in the communities across the nation who are attempting to provide rehabilitation to those who are addicted and who have fallen into this trap.
In Toronto we have an organization called Caritas. It is attempting to do just that. It has adopted the name Caritas from Latin which means charity. It is an attempt to bring the affected youth a message of hope and the tangible assistance through dedicated community workers who offer a ray of hope through constructive activities in an environment and a new home. This has been made possible through the substantial support of the community itself which has come somehow to the conclusion that efforts of this kind not only deserve support but demand very generous endorsement and funding.
We need probably hundreds of Caritas initiatives throughout urban Canada. At the present time they are very few and far between. Why is that so? Probably the answer is that our priorities are wrong because in difficult times it is the social services which get the axe so to speak.
Instead of being the last to be affected, social services are the first. Therefore, one must conclude that if the words human resources are to mean anything we must revisit our priorities. We must conclude that if we do not pay attention to the human being, particularly in the early stages of life, and if we do not make adequate investments in that person by way of education, information and community care, then human resources become empty words.
This debate, if it is to have any meaning tonight has to conclude with some specific recommendations of the government. Obviously we cannot indulge ourselves in
May 5, 1992

an abstract analysis of the problem without concluding also in a constructive manner.
It seems to me that in this Chamber we have here the duty at least to call on the government and to tell it to restore the social programs that have been reduced. It should rebuild the social programs that are required in order to strengthen the fabric of human life in the cities.
We call on the government to reintroduce the social housing programs, to implement its promises on child care programs, to fund again apprenticeship programs, to increase the training activities particularly for youth, to reinvent the job creating activities that have so well served this country, and to facilitate the access to opportunities for the young people who are anxious and desirous to enter the labour force.
There is nothing more debilitating and depressing which eventually leads to drifting than the fact that as a young person one cannot find a job, one cannot have the means to earn a living, one cannot have access to the beginning of a career by way of finding one's first employment. This is what is probably polluting the urban environment mostly.
This is why the human ecology which I mentioned earlier needs attention.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to some very thoughtful and considered remarks tonight which have been brought forth in the course of this extraordinary exchange. This is not a debate. The member for Trinity-Spadina is to be thanked for having suggested that we undertake this discussion. I do not know if my colleague for Chambly was the seconder of the motion. If he were I thank him. If he were not, he got an accolade on this occasion.
I know it is late. It is after the midnight hour. I do not know that many people are listening to us in the House. Notwithstanding, there are some very serious issues we have to think about.
The riot that took place last night brought to mind a number of things that have gone on. I would like to do a little retrospect of what has happened in my own life in the last couple of weeks to put this whole question into focus.
The riot last night was in a sense mob violence. It was a group of young vandals taking advantage of what was and
what seemed to be a peaceful demonstration that turned into a rampage in downtown Toronto. Some of us can remember back to a night on that same Yonge Street when the windows were bashed and cracked after an Argos game. A group came out of the stadium, all very excited, and mob violence took over.
There are parallels that have nothing to do with the colour of one's skin but have to do with the nature of an incident that takes place. It may well relate to exuberance. It may well relate to violence based on just cause. However, violence of any nature is never very productive in a society.
Last Sunday-I can hardly believe that was just two days ago-I visited a small, beautiful Lutheran church in the NDG riding where a Holocaust remembrance service was being undertaken. A very interesting Finnish priest gave the lecture after we lit the candles of the menorah, recalling Hasoha, recalling injustice, recalling genocide based on who you were, not what you were; based on a Nazi ideology that just swept with fury like a sickness, an illness, a disease of the mind. Nazis and collaborators destroyed millions of people. The priest who was speaking talked about the need to love thy neighbour, "Love thy neighbour as thyself; do unto thy neighbour as you would have done unto you". These are fundamental, Judeo-Christian values that stand for any one of the religions of the world, the way people are to be decent human beings. It is not the colour of one's skin, not the country of origin, not the background, culture or language, but just who you are, that you are on this earth, that you have been born, that you live and you have the right to respect dignity and fair treatment.
The priest went on to say that you do not have to like your neighbour, you do not have to agree with everything he does, but you do have to love him in the fullest sense of how one should love one's self.
I thought that it was a wonderful message in this era of racism, of xenophobia, of hatred, of differences. I thought how fitting, as I listened to this priest, and I wished I had thought of those words the week before when I had gone to participate in the day of commemoration of the Vietnamese community. They were, in one sense, thanking their good fortune as they were the boat people who came to Canada in 1979 and with whom I had worked, and at the same time they were recalling then-dead heroes, the unsung heroes of the battles of Vietnam, of the millions who had been maimed, who had

May 5, 1992
been orphaned, who had suffered from bombs and the defoliation of their country.
I thought of the Armenian remembrance day that I attended the same afternoon; 1,000 Armenians in the church remembering the death and slaughter of 1.5 million of their brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins in 1915, the hundreds of thousands who had fled across mountains, of the breaking up of families. I thought, here we were, remembering the Armenian holocaust, the Jewish Shoah, the Vietnamese boat people, and at the same time we have other things that we must remember that go on right here in this country. There is no country that is without blame and there is no country that is without sin. There is no country that has always treated its people well.
There are different reasons why these kinds of things happen. On Saturday night I had the privilege of attending the black businessmen council's dinner at the Delta Hotel in Montreal. They were presenting the Jackie Robinson award for excellence. I was seated with a group of extraordinary men and women who are wonderful role models for the black community. Seated among us were some people who I recognized. There was a very well known owner of hotels and motels, a land developer of renown, an insurance broker who was well known, a very well respected immigration lawyer, an entrepreneur for whom I have a great deal of respect; businessmen and business women, an economist with H.F.C., a professor from the University of Quebec. We were talking about the need for role models in today's society, particularly for the young visible minority people.
In my riding, where we had a level of unemployment which I will come to in a moment, this was a very important opportunity for me to examine with these men and women of colour what they felt we could do and how we could, in a way, use the wonderful achievements that they had realized to enable their young people to have a sense of tomorrow, to have a sense of hope, to know that there are ways in which they can come out of the unfortunate ghetto that they feel they are trapped in. We talked about Jackie Robinson, the man whose trophy was being awarded to an outstanding Haitian who owned the Lasalle Taxi company in Montreal. I believe his name was M. Raymond. We talked about the role that Branch
Rickey had played on the Dodgers when he brought Jackie Robinson to Montreal, a man who had shown incredible integrity, honesty, a wonderful ball player, and someone who broke the racial stereotypes, the racial barriers, and changed the world of baseball forever.
Yes, Canada, Quebec, Montreal, have had a very important role in changing the place that marks the visible minorities in our community. You could not help but think about today the systemic and the systematic degrees of unbelievable intolerance that is out there with many people. It comes from ignorance. It comes from setting stereotypes in one's mind.
My colleague earlier tonight talked about the Indian people, the aboriginals of Canada. I did the Indian Act and I can tell you that the discrimination against women, the discrimination against those people, the discrimination against their children, the removal of their children from their homes, the whole attitude toward aboriginal peoples in our society was sick. It was founded on false premise, a lack of understanding of culture, of language, of lifestyle. That is what is wrong with many of the things that we do.
We develop a sense of hatred out of fear. Racism flows from fear. It is a hatred of difference.
I say to you when I hear us talk about Canada being a tolerant country that is not a word that turns me on. It is a word that turns me off. I think it is a very poor word. It is a very condescending word. Tolerance is not what it is all about. It is respect for difference. It is respect for diversity because Canada is a land of diversity. Canadian culture is the beauty of respect for the cultural differences be they linguistic, culture, geography, regional, whatever they may be, and particularly in the large cities which have become melting pots in many ways. Yet we want to be able to maintain a respect for one's roots and a pride in one's roots.
There is something fundamentally wrong with our immigration system and our integration system. It is our immigration and integration both as the receivers of new people. We do not know them. We do not understand them and we have not been exposed to the kind of
May 5, 1992

information which we should have as an education and learning procedure.
Our television sets do not show us the real stories. We do not feel comfortable in telling our stories. Multicul-turalism one is not supposed to talk about. We are not supposed to be hyphenated Canadians. We are all hyphenated something-or-others, and there is nothing wrong with that. One loves a mother and father, one is the child of that marriage, one can certainly share that sense of love and belonging to the land of birth, the land of history, the city of living and the people who surround us. I see nothing wrong with being hyphenated in many ways.
I suggest we are all Canadians and as Canadians we must learn, we must teach, and we must develop a sense of belonging, a sense of respect and of joy in our differences. The sooner we do that the better off we will be.
Los Angeles and the Rodney King story is a different story from the riot in Toronto in my view. Yet there is a similarity that could happen.
We have a problem in the making if we are not careful; if we do not realize that economic policy alone, resolving debt and deficit, is a poor policy without examining the social debt and deficit that we build; if we build on an insecure family, poorly housed, poorly fed, not well nourished in terms of books and learning and respect and love for life.
If you are left with a sense of desperation because you do not have the food to feed your family properly, the clothes to dress your family properly, you will lose your sense of self-worth. How are you supposed to drag yourself out of that to get into the marketplace? No one is helping you into that marketplace, either.
We have talked about setting up, particularly for new immigrants in this country, incubators to allow new immigrants to learn how we market, how we merchandise, how we buy, how we sell, the Canadian way of doing business. That is a variety of ways and a variety of products. However, we do not do that. We have not put into place the kinds of programs that would have helped us to address what has happened with the new free trade arrangements.
We have put into place the kinds of programs that are not meeting the needs of a country in a serious recession. I cannot recall any time in the past, except over these last few years, when people were standing at bus stops and in front of restaurants with their hands out begging. I was
taught that if someone approaches you and says: "Give me a dime for a cup of coffee", that you do not lecture, you give the dime. You lecture your Red Cross, your fundraising, your Red Feather, or Combined Jewish Appeal.
They are not asking for a dime or a quarter because you cannot buy anything for a dime or a quarter anymore. They are asking for $1 or $2.
Mr. Speaker, do you remember food banks where you lived? TTiere was never a food bank where I lived. Now there are food banks in my riding. There is a lack of social policy and vision to change this country, particularly in its urban centres, into a proper area in which to live through social housing, co-op housing, food, clothing, and education; to change this country into a place in which the child who goes to school has pride in going to school and someone is at home or there is a child care or day care program where he can go so he is not left alone with a latch key around his neck and they are made to feel like needed human beings. Everybody is needed, no matter the colour of their skin.
There was a lesson to be learned from Los Angeles and there was a lesson to be learned from the riot last night. That lesson is that it could happen here. All these things come with poverty and the growing gap between the rich and poor. Racism is a symptom and the outcome is violence and xenophobia. The outcome is a trigger to a destabilized community. We cannot have a good economy if we do not have a good society. Do not forget that. Money does not buy safety on the streets.
We have to think about how to prevent this loss of hope, this loss of a sense of well-being. What can we do to strengthen the social fabric of our society other than by addressing the issues I have just mentioned? How are we going to fill that breach between the haves and the have nots and create a fairer balance and the basic decency which one would hope to find in Canada?
The statistics show that in Quebec there is 19.8 to 20 per cent unemployment amongst our youth in general. A study done in my riding shows that there is 60 to 65 per cent unemployment among visible minorities. Does that not say something about a poor structure? Something is wrong somewhere when mothers come to my office and tell me that they are terrified that their children travel on the metro system and they do not know if they are going to be harassed by the police. If they happen to get together in gangs and happen to belong to a visible minority group they know they are going to be hassled. Is there not something wrong?

May 5, 1992
I know the police are trying hard and I know they are doing training. I know they are doing recruiting, but it is not enough and it is not quick enough.
I will tell you that we must do something about the violence which has increased by 40 per cent. We have to do something about drugs when we hear that Canada has the highest rate of drug related crimes in the industrialized world. We know that gang wars are taking place on the streets in my riding, that crack houses exist, that prostitution is the answer for many of the foster children.
There is racial tension between groups because we did not integrate well through immigration programs and poverty problems because we have not set up the proper vision of where balance belongs in our society. I say to you that we must find some of the answers.
I know that many of my colleagues gave a list of the things that could be done so that justice will not only be
perceived to be done but shall be accomplished. We need action now. We need to return that sense of worth, that sense of dignity regardless of colour, regardless of language, regardless of creed, regardless of country of origin. That is what we have to do and that is the message from last night.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 52(12) I am satisfied that the debate has now been concluded. I therefore declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Accordingly this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.30 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 6,1992