1992-04-08

Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and thousands of Canadians are launching National Citizenship Week with the reaffirmation ceremony called "Committed to Canada".
It is time for us all to reflect on what it means to be a good Canadian citizen. Although we are so diverse, we are unified on these values.
We believe in tolerance, respect and reasonable accommodation for others. We believe in freedom, human rights and equal opportunity for all. We are staunch supporters of peace, justice and law and order for all.
The good Canadian citizen also fights for these same values throughout the world. We fight not with sticks, stones, guns, intimidation and threats but with words and peaceful actions consistent with democratic law-abiding Canadian tradition.


WHYCOCOMAGH CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, it is a truism that a sustainable world requires an environmentally aware citizenry and this begins first and foremost with education.
Environmental education is holistic. It begins with the child and carries through primary and secondary school
to the development of an environmental ethic as a natural code of behaviour.
Surprisingly, these self-evident principles have taken a long time to find their way into the curricula of our schools. This is changing with a bold, exciting and visionary proposal being developed in the community of Whycocomagh on Cape Breton Island.
Whycocomagh, which is Micmac for "head of the waters", is a small community nestled in the Bras d'Or lakes area. Faced with closure, the staff of Whycocomagh Consolidated School is reinventing its curriculum to become an environmental education centre where the principles and methods of holistic environmental education can be advanced and shared with the world.
This is an idea whose time has come. It is one which this government and all members of this House will want to support and encourage.


OVERFISHING
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to the serious crisis that exists in the fishing industry off the coast of Newfoundland.
The members will be aware that yesterday the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland appeared in front of the environment committee on this issue.
Last week in New York at the fourth preparatory committee meeting leading up to the earth summit, a wide-ranging group of non-govemmental organizations and governments produced the New York declaration on high seas overfishing and protection of the commons.
They referred specifically to the implementation of article 116 of the Law of the Sea convention which clearly establishes that high seas fishing states have an obligation to conserve these stocks and to co-operate with adjacent coastal stocks that were given superior rights over straddling stocks.

April 8, 1992
This New York declaration calls for all states to reinforce the provisions of the Law of the Sea and to have an international conference to resolve these matters.
I would urge all hon. members to support this important resolution in order that we can safely and for the future of humanity conserve a very important resource off Canada's east coast.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, last week three members of this Chamber were in Washington to participate in the third annual PSEKA Conference concerning the precarious situation in Cyprus.
Lately there has been a great deal of concern about this troubled nation, particularly since Canada has maintained a UN peacekeeping presence there for 27 years and still no peaceful resolution exists on the horizon.
Last week, we heard conflicting reports from the external affairs minister and the associate defence minister disputing Canada's continued peacekeeping commitment on the island.
Certainly we all want to see a settlement in Cyprus which would be acceptable to both the Greek-Cypriot community and to the Turkish-Cypriot community.
I am concerned, however, that Canada might unilaterally and prematurely withdraw our UN forces without full consideration for the bloodshed that would surely follow.
I caution the minister of external affairs to treat the Cyprus question with better care and understanding than has been demonstrated thus far.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture tabled its report yesterday. The report advocates federal involvement in these areas. It was signed by the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. All three parties also signed the Beaudoin-Dobbie
report which favoured Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over culture. However, the Liberal Party disagreed with this recommendation. It is clear today that the NDP and Brian Mulroney's troops have closed ranks with Jean Chretien.
The Belanger-Campeau commission and the Allaire report advocated Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over both culture and communications. Ottawa ignores and challenges Quebec's position, all of which is reflected in the report as well as in Bill C-62, which was condemned by Quebec Minister Lawrence Cannon. These two examples prove once again that Ottawa has been wilfully misleading Quebec. Quebecers will not tolerate this political manoeuvring, whose sole aim is to strengthen Ottawa's centralizing powers while giving the impression there will be a genuine opening up as regards the distribution of powers.


SIGNS OF HOPE, SEA TO SEA
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound -Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I believe my constituents of Parry Sound- Muskoka are among the most environmentally responsible in Canada.
The prospect of a clean and safe environmental future rests with Canada's youth. Accordingly, elementary and secondary school students in my riding will be making a major contribution to Earth Day on April 22, 1992.
David Whiteside, a teacher at Muskoka Lake Secondary School, is the motivating force behind a student recording of an original song entitled Signs of Hope, Sea to Sea.
Over 14,000 cassette tapes have been mailed to every school in Canada so students from coast to coast can join together in a national chorus of environmentalism.
I encourage all members of the House to promote the playing of this song in the schools and on the radio stations in their own constituencies on Earth Day.
I know my fellow members join me in offering hearty congratulations to the dedicated students and teachers of Muskoka on their worthy endeavour.
I would like to thank the Minister of the Environment for a generous contribution of $8,000 to this project.
April 8, 1992


OVERFISHING
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, diplomatic efforts to halt the overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks have failed. The European Community, in particular Portugal and Spain, are treating the fishery as a resource to be mined. Sadly, like the buffalo and the passenger pigeon, this slaughter of dwindling stocks is a crime against the environment.
The time has come for Canada to declare the establishment of a custodial management zone over the marine resources that straddle and extend beyond the 200-mile zone. It must be made absolutely clear to the world community that this declaration is for conservation purposes.
World opinion will treat harshly any nation that allows its fleet to poach within the boundaries of this new conservation zone.
I say shame on those who fearmonger to Canadians that this declaration would create a military confrontation with the fish pirates.
World opinion is overwhelming for the protection of endangered species and stocks and it is our responsibility to protect the dwindling stocks of the Grand Banks from destruction.
It may be diplomatically polite to wait until the stocks are extinct and the fleet goes elsewhere to fish but that is the politics of failure and stupidity.
The declaration must take effect no later than January 1, 1993.


AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Space Agency has a mandate to distribute 10 per cent of the government's space contracts to Atlantic Canada.
Atlantic Canada has a growing aerospace industry with many changes and developments in manufacturing, research and development and it is anxious to work with the Space Agency and with the Department of Industry, Science and Technology to achieve this 10 per cent goal.
Recent additions to the Atlantic aerospace industry include world-class CAD/CAM machining facilities, electrical harness plants, and a new fuselage components factory in Amherst.
The department and its officials, as well as the Canadian Space Agency must work with the industry in Atlantic Canada to identify areas where progress can be made toward achieving the regional mandate of the agency of having 10 per cent of the space contracts being done in Atlantic Canada.


LOBSTER FISHERY
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise two issues of concern to the province of Prince Edward Island lobster fishing industry.
The first involves lobster carapace size.
The P.E.I. legislative assembly has unanimously endorsed a resolution asking the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to freeze further scheduled carapace size increases and to carry out an impact study of the increases already in effect. These increases have lead to lower catches and decreased incomes for many of our fishermen.
As well, it has been established that there is a substantial world market for smaller lobster. DFO regulations are preventing our fishermen from sharing in this market.
It has also been scientifically established that conservation of the stocks is not a problem and does not require these measures.
Therefore I would urge the minister to react positively to this request and implement the freeze.
The second issue concerns the problem of poaching.
Our legitimate fishermen need to have their industry and themselves protected from poachers. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans at present is simply not doing the job.
If the department does not have the human or financial resources to do its job then it should ask the Department of National Defence for help. We need surveillance on both land and water if we hope to solve this problem.

April 8, 1992
With the season only three weeks away I urge the minister to act immediately.


ANTI-TAX MOVEMENTS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, anti-tax movements are springing up all over Quebec, and I think we should remind them that what is happening today is the result of yesterday's negligence on the part of those who governed the country at the time. There is also the economic recession which turned out to be more serious than we thought, but we all know the economy goes through certain cycles. Whether we like it or not, we will have to pay our bills, because federal, provincial and municipal politicians cannot forgive debts once they have been incurred. We will have to be more reasonable in our demands for goods and services.
Pressure and protests from anti-tax movements are powerless against past overspending and the resulting debt. However, they can give politicians who are so anxious to give people what they want cause to reflect, advocate more responsible fiscal management and prevent them from making the situation even worse than it is now.


CHILD POVERTY
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Vanier Institute of the Family one million Canadian children live below the poverty line. Child poverty is essentially family poverty.
The challenge is to respond appropriately to one very basic fact, poor children are the sons and daughters of poor parents.
The Canadian government must recognize the vast resources held in the outstretched hands and minds of our children and acknowledge the poverty of children and their families both in this country and around the world.
All children of all nations must be given the opportunity to develop to their full potential. Children are our nation's and the world's nations most important resource.
Governments of the developing world are devoting half of their expenditures to debt servicing and military spending. This unproductivity must end.
The Government of Canada must move toward a reallocation of resources for the development of our children and our future. Canada must link its Third World aid policies to the advancement of human rights and in recognition of the untapped resources held in the minds of their children, provide direct poverty alleviation in our aid program.


OZONE DEPLETION
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, mounting medical evidence confirms that ozone depletion is a threat to the continuation of life on earth. Yet the call to action on ozone depletion made by the environment committee in our report nearly two years ago received little attention. Belatedly the alarm bells are now ringing.
Canada's location in the northern hemisphere means we experience disproportionate effects of ozone depletion. The incidence of skin cancer, immune disorders and eye damage are rising at unprecedented rates.
We are not powerless against these threats. We will all have to learn to protect ourselves from ultraviolet radiation. This protection is particularly urgent for our children.
Government must bring in stiff, mandatory and uniform regulations against ozone depleting chemicals. We must also give urgent priority for technology to recapture, recycle and ultimately destroy these chemicals. In addition, we should have mandatory standards for sunscreens and protective sunglasses.
Finally, we must highlight the urgency of this issue at the upcoming earth summit in Brazil and at the renegotiations of the Montreal protocol.



April 8, 1992


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in 1974 Turkish troops landed on Cyprus. Today, 18 years later, despite 24 United Nations resolutions calling upon Turkey to withdraw its troops, they continue to occupy almost one-half of that independent nation. For the past 27 years, Canada has been participating in a United Nations-Cyprus peacekeeping force. Five hundred and seventy-six Canadians make up one-quarter of the UN contingent at an ongoing annual cost to Canadian taxpayers of some $14 million.
Since 1964, 15 Canadians have lost their lives in peacekeeping duty on Cyprus. Recently, both the Secretary General of the United Nations and the President of the United States have attempted to negotiate a peaceful and a just settlement for Cyprus. Canada must also be actively involved in this effort.
This Friday, the United States Ambassador to Cyprus, Nelson Ledsky, will be in Ottawa for consultations on the issue. It is in Canada's best interest as well as in Cyprus' best interest that a just solution be found to this problem just as quickly as possible.


NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP WEEK
Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, today we highlight the launching of National Citizenship Week, which will be held from April 12 to 18 this year. To mark this special day, hundreds of young people will participate this afternoon in a ceremony reaffirming their citizenship.
They will thus express their pride in being Canadian and their deep faith in the future of our country. Later in the day, at a special ceremony on Parliament Hill, 25 people and organizations from across Canada will receive certificates of civic merit in recognition of their outstanding contributions to Canadian society.
I call on all members of this House to join me in paying tribute to these committed citizens who care about promoting freedom, equality and respect for diversity in
the community. Together we will build a country to match our aspirations.


EMBASSY OF IRAN
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, all responsible Canadians were incensed by the weekend attack on the Iranian embassy in Ottawa. This type of violence is not acceptable in this country. I would call on the legal authorities and the government to let those involved and any who are considering such actions know that Canada will not tolerate other nations' conflicts and violence on our soil.
Canadian citizenship is a privilege that is sought by thousands of people around the world. Last year alone we opened our borders to over 200,000. We need immigrants and a great majority of them have made positive contributions to this country, but we should not extend rights to those who refuse to accept the responsibility of abiding by our laws. We do not need thugs and hoodlums and we must not allow violence and strife from other nations to be transplanted here.


MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, there is a sense of urgency in this country. People are calling for some economic stimulus, some concrete job creation that will literally help put this country back on solid footing.
The one, and I emphasize only one, program that everyone does agree upon is the need to renew our infrastructure. Our bridges, roads, tunnels and sewer systems will not be able to support our new found prosperity after this government is turfed out of office. Who supports the Federation of Canadian Municipalities? There are 600 cities and towns across Canada that support it. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business supports it. The Canadian Labour Congress supports it. Two bank presidents support it, most provincial premiers support it, the Canadian Construction Association supports it, the Coalition to Renew Canada's Infrastructure supports it. Who is in the Coalition?

April 8, 1992
Oral Questions
There is Sears, Labatt's, Greyhound, Canadian Airlines, 3M Canada, Xerox Canada, Reinforcing Steel, institutes. They all support it. The New Democratic Party supports it. The only party that does not endorse the idea right now, a move that could put 63,000 people back to work, is the Government of Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance said many times that the economic recovery in Canada was based on exporting more of our products to western countries. Today, the International Monetary Fund lowered its forecasts of economic growth in the western world and at the same time, the OECD announced that it would reduce its predictions and release the exact figure on May 15.
I would like to know from the Minister of Finance whether he intends to stand in this House and, in light of these unfortunate developments, tell us that his predictions will be changed, and when he will do so.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the forecasts that were taken by the IMF and the OECD and released during the month of October were based upon a certain set of assumptions. The revised forecasts which are currently being undertaken will be released some time toward the end of this month, in readiness for the IMF G-7 meeting which will take place in Washington later this month.
The government looked at the trends in Canada's economic performance and we revised our figures downward from those which the OECD and the IMF had projected in October. If there is a decline in their projected figures, and there is some preliminary information to that effect, I can assure the hon. member that we have taken those considerations into account in incorporating the budget.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in light of this development and the fact that
everybody recognizes that the economy is still in a slump, that there is very little hope of getting out of this slump quickly, at the end of January the Liberal caucus presented a plan that was again supported yesterday by the representatives of the mayors of the largest cities of Canada to have a shared cost infrastucture program that will be paid for one third by the municipalities, one third by the provincial governments and one third by the federal government.
They came again yesterday and asked for this program to be started right away because they are ready. The programs are waiting and they will be able to put thousands of people to work within days. Why is the minister not telling them today that because of the slow growth, no growth, or the recession, that this program will be put into effect right away?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition talked about the economy being in a slump. He related it to the economic slump that the whole industrialized world finds itself in, and that is a fact of life. I am pleased that the hon. member has finally taken that into consideration and recognizes that that reality exists. It is not a situation that is totally confined to Canada. It exists throughout the industrialized world.
With respect to the question regarding infrastructure, I responded to that in the House yesterday. The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that during the course of the first ministers meeting we did in fact talk about infrastructure. We talked about the willingness on the part of the federal government to explore ways and means of improving the national highway system and looking at ways and means to expedite the fixed link and airport development initiatives. I think those are the kinds of things that are very important.
The hon. member should also know that yesterday the Minister of National Defence and other ministers announced a very important initiative sponsored by the Department of National Defence. It will provide for new helicopters and combat vehicles in London and Montreal, totalling some $1.8 billion, which will not only sustain employment but also create new jobs.
That is the kind of productive activity I think the hon. member is looking for.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that I recognized there is a problem around the world. I say to the minister that when we are in a situation like that, it is the time for the government to act.
April 8, 1992

Here we have a proposition by the municipalities. They are all having some financial problems, but they are willing to put one third of the costs on the table. It would cost the federal government only one third. Of that it will recoup almost all of the money because of the growth it will cause in Canada and the reduction in payments to welfare and unemployment insurance recipients. Why is the minister being stubborn? Why does he not want to act as the municipalities are asking him to do right now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Leader of the Opposition not only wants to drive up the deficit of the federal government, he wants to drive up the deficits of provincial and municipal governments.
I think that is irresponsible. It is one thing to recognize the need to help the economy, but it is another thing to simply willy-nilly tax more or drive up the deficit. I ask the hon. member to consider the words of Mr. Tom McCormack in The Toronto Star which were published last Sunday. I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition reads The Toronto Star religiously. Mr. Tom McCormack said this: "This country which already enjoys the second highest standard of living in the world is on the threshold of an unprecedented expansion, but this golden age of prosperity could be jeopardized by Canadians and their pessimistic national mood".
I ask the hon. member, knowing that he recognizes there is an attitudinal problem as well as an economic problem, to join Mr. McCormack and join the throngs of people that-


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


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since this government's made-in-Canada recession began, fully 82,000 Canadian consumers have had to declare personal bankruptcy. One in every 322 Canadians has been completely destroyed by this government's economic policies.
How much more will it take before the minister realizes that these are just not faceless figures? There are real people behind these numbers, men and women
Oral Questions
who have been absolutely devastated by this government's economic policies.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition says that the economic problems that we face in Canada are part of a world-wide difficulty. The hon. member for Dartmouth says it is a made-in-Canada recession.
I think the hon. member should be encouraged by the fact that the business bankruptcy figures have declined by 7.7 per cent. It is an encouraging sign which I believe is responsive to the policies the government has been following. I think the hon. member should find some encouragement in that.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
In February this year, 5,581 Canadian consumers had to declare personal bankruptcy. By anybody's measure, that is a damning indictment of this government's economic policies. How many more casualties, how many more families, men, women and children, will see their lives destroyed before this government changes its economic approach in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I take no comfort in the tragedy of individual bankruptcies, and I know the hon. member does not. The fact of the matter is that there are no short, simple, easy answers.
We have been trying to get at the fundamentals by bringing down the inflationary pressures so we can lower interest rates. Bringing interest rates down and keeping inflation down are key to sustainable recovery over a long period of time. The fundamentals are in place. There are some signs of a take-up in housing and in motor vehicles sales, as well as in the merchandise trade.
The initiatives taken by the federal government, and particularly complemented by some provinces, such as Prince Edward Island and Manitoba, will help to improve the competitive position and job creating opportunities in the manufacturing and processing sectors. These are positive signals and the hon. member should applaud them.

April 8, 1992
Oral Questions


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance says that Canadians are being pessimistic.
It is very difficult when we see that food banks have tripled, that bankruptcies are up at record levels, when the number of jobs available through the help wanted index is down, and when in fact the government's response to 1.5 million Canadians has simply been: Wait until the economies of other countries rebound and that will make our economy get better.
The International Monetary Fund and the OECD have indicated that the world-wide recession is going to continue. That does not mean that the minister can, as he did today, say: "Well, we can't do anything about it". This government has some choices to make. Is the minister going to continue to ask 1.5 million Canadians to wait until the Japanese economy rebounds and wait until the U.S. economy rebounds, or is he going to do something here at home for Canadian workers and Canadian business?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member talked about my suggestion that Canadians were pessimistic, I was simply quoting from an article written by an economist, Tom McCormack. There are choices to be made.
I notice that New Democratic governments choose to tax people more. They choose to tax corporations more.
We choose to tax Canadians less. We choose to provide incentives to small business. We choose to provide incentives to the manufacturing and processing sectors because that is where the jobs will be created and maintained. That is what will help Canada improve its competitive position.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it would be very interesting to the Canadian public to hear this minister lecture about tax increases when this government has brought in 35 tax increases since it came into power in 1984 and then, on top of that, put in the GST.


An hon. member:: Thlk about trying to have it both ways.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Yesterday the government was told once again that there is a practical plan to begin to put at
least some Canadians back to work, a large number of Canadians, through a municipal infrastructure program. The Canadian Federation of Municipalities estimates that approximately 67,000 more taxpayers from coast to coast to coast could be gainfully employed, through a municipal infrastructure program.
Why does the minister not consider addressing both the environmental problem that we have through decaying municipal infrastructures and the unemployment program by seriously considering participating in this co-operative program?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to follow the logic of the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party.
Yesterday she was complaining about the fact that we have not taxed corporations and Canadians enough. Today she is saying we have taxed them too much. She is going to have to make up her mind.


An hon. member:: The corporations.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Corporations create jobs. Small businesses create jobs. Medium sized corporations create jobs. Big corporations create jobs. Why do you want to kill corporations-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon. [Translation]


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, in many foreign countries, the unemployment rate is much lower than it is in Canada. It is 5.5 per cent in Germany, 4 per cent in Holland and 2 per cent in Japan. These countries are doing something about the recession. When will this government stop depending on the economy in other countries to save our own? When will it start setting up programs for workers and businesses in this country? It is a fact that the unemployment rate in the countries I just mentioned is lower than ours. Why do we have a 10 per cent unemployment rate in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a short memory. For the last 30 years, and particularly the last six or seven years, Canada has led all OECD nations, that is all the industrialized nations in the world,
April 8, 1992

in job creation. We did that because we got the fundamentals right.
We can do the same thing by getting the fundamentals right, by doing the things that we have done in the budget and by doing the things that the government of Prince Edward Island is doing, the government of Manitoba is doing and I am sure that many other provinces are doing, with the exception of the socialist provinces which really believe in spending their way out of this difficulty and taxing Canadians into prosperity. I do not subscribe to that position.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the government has never explained to the Canadian people its specific objectives in the current trade negotiations with Mexico and the United States. For example, it continues to remain unclear whether this government intends to hold the line against the United States demands for a higher North American content in such sectors as automobiles, textiles and electronics.
Will the government refuse to sign a trilateral agreement if the price is in fact higher North American content?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that Canadian tariffs against Mexico right now are virtually all gone. There is virtually none left. Mexican tariffs against Canada are substantial and across a wide range of goods. Why would one not negotiate the removal of Mexico's tariffs if one could do it?
This particular agreement will allow us to become, if we negotiate it properly, and the minister is doing that carefully this week and will do so in the future, a preferred site for investment for all of North America. Those are our objectives and we are confident we will achieve them.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, evidently the minister did not understand the question. I did not ask about tariffs. I asked about North American content. It is quite a different question. Perhaps we
Oral Questions
should wait for the return of the minister of trade to get an answer.
I will try again and perhaps this time the minister will understand what it is I am speaking about.


An hon. member:: Speak slowly, Roy.


Roy MacLaren: I will speak very slowly. The minister should know full well that the United States is demanding higher North American content which is intended to protect jobs and manufacturing interests in the United States arid would discourage future investment and future jobs in Canada as well as in Mexico.
If that is the case, has the government got a bottom line beyond which it will not go, or is it looking at a separate Canada-Mexican agreement if it will not accept the U.S. demands for higher U.S. content?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this is in order or not, but we have in the gallery gold medal winners, silver medal winners, bronze medal winners from the Canadian Olympic team.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Hockin: We have a gold medal winner right here too.


An hon. member:: He is out of shape now.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians can compete and Canadians can win. The hon. member stands up and quotes an American negotiating position and wants to give up the negotiations. He is even afraid to negotiate with the Americans because they suggest something different than we suggest. We are not afraid to compete and win.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. In the continuing negotiations on the North American free trade agreement I want to ask the minister what his objectives are regarding financial institutions?
Will the industry be treated better than it was under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement which gave American industry a clear advantage? Why are Canadians being kept in the dark about this issue?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, that question comes close to being sensible. It is very seldom in this House that hon. members ask about financial institutions.

April 8, 1992
Oral Questions
In the financial institutions part of the free trade agreement, Canada not only guaranteed the access it already has for its insurance companies, trust companies and banks, but we were given a privileged position in the U.S. that even American banks were not given, whereby our banks were allowed to own securities forms in the United States. We have gained in the United States through negotiations, a certification of our advantage.
Under NAFTA our banks, our insurance companies, our trust companies our financial institutions are looking forward to the ability to compete there. We are trying to negotiate approved access for them in Mexico, just as we did in the United States.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister.
The Canadian Bankers' Association said recently that the free trade agreement put Canadian financial institutions at a clear disadvantage.
Will this government tell Canadians today what its plans are regarding financial institutions? Will the minister assure this House that his government will not sell out our financial services industry as it did under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member disappoints me because her supplementary clearly was written before she heard my answer.
The hon. member would have found it interesting last Sunday to have read the business section of The New York Times. In it, the 12 largest banks in North America are identified. Four of the 12 biggest banks in North America are Canadian banks. The article by Clyde Farnsworth goes on to develop the tremendous advantages that Canadian financial institutions are finding in the U.S. He warns the Americans to watch out. [DOT]
We did not lose in the free trade agreement. In fact, we gained all sorts of access we never had before.



Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance sounds like Herbert Hoover.
He is trying to talk this country into prosperity but the reality is that bankruptcies are at record rates and housing starts have declined. Today the Royal Bank said that the growth rate in this country is going to be half what the government projected in its budget.
I want to ask this government: Is it not clear to the minister that his approach has come to a dead end? Is he not prepared to recognize reality, bring in a new budget and get Canadians back to work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to quote the Royal Bank of Canada, he had better quote it completely.
Mr. Ed Neufeld, the economic and corporate affairs executive said this: "I can think of no single development that would be more positive for economic recovery than resolution of the constitutional issue."
I certainly agree with that wholeheartedly. It would at one stroke remove enormous uncertainty, an uncertainty that no business can really ignore when it is planning its medium term position in the marketplace today.
Mr. Neufeld goes on to say: "Another danger is the fast rising provincial budget deficits, especially in Ontario, which will put upward pressure on interest rates, slow economic growth". That is what the Royal Bank of Canada predicted.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the rate which the government projected in the budget for growth was 2.7 per cent.
The Royal Bank says absolutely that it will not be greater than 1.4 per cent. That is half. The government has to recognize that there must be a change in its strategy.
Will the government, in fact, start to do something? Will it lower interest rates? Will it set up an economic recovery fund? Will it respond to municipal infrastructure concerns? Will it do something, or will it continue to excuse itself on the basis of constitutional problems or
April 8, 1992

concerns that somebody else is not doing what this government wants it to do?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member almost seems ecstatic about the Royal Bank's projections.
I suppose I can ask him the same question. Since the Royal Bank said that one of the dangers concerning economic growth is the fast rising provincial budget deficits, especially in Ontario, I am going to ask the hon. member to do something. I am going to ask him to go and see his friend Bobby Rae and appeal to him not to raise taxes, personal or corporate, and not to drive up the deficit. He will be doing Canada a great favour if he does that.


POVERTY
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
This week in Ottawa West, the regional municipality is buying a hotel to provide emergency shelter to some of the homeless families who are the victims of the heartless social and economic polices of this government right here in the nation's capital.
Over 35,000 children, 100,000 people, 50 per cent more than last year, live in poverty, surviving on social assistance or unemployment insurance.
What specific programs does his government have to relieve the poverty and misery it is causing just beyond the steps of Parliament?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there is a program called the Canada Assistance Plan where the federal government pays 50 per cent of the eligible costs at the provincial level. There is $3.4 billion of Canadian taxpayers money in job training programs. There are a host of programs.
If the hon. member is targeting a specific project there, I would be pleased to look with her at the dozens of programs that are available to help people. If the hon. member wants to go through that process, I am ready to help her out.
Oral Questions


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Over 2,000 children lived in emergency shelters in this community last year, 60 per cent in refugee families living in poverty because his government and his department are taking eight months to hear their claims. That is eight months with no work permit, eight months in which they are not eligible for the programs that he just described or for the social assistance that the government is responsible for paying to refugees and immigrants in this country when they need it.
How does the minister justify creating a whole new group of poor people because his department is not processing refugee claims and is dumping the responsibility on to the municipalities and the provinces?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member cares to look at the numbers and the statistics provided by the IRB, she will acknowledge in the House to all her colleagues that in fact the process of refugee determination has been greatly enhanced in terms of the time it takes to process claims.
She is not telling Canadians that right now the process deals with more claims every month than we have new claimants. This is quite an improvement. The hon. member talks about the refugee determination process. If they want to co-operate, I am sure all members of the House could work together to improve that system greatly.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
There are now 46,000 unemployed Edmontonians. The number of city residents on assistance and living below the poverty line has increased by 28 per cent over the past year, many of them children.
The government's capping of the cash transfers to three provinces including Alberta is worsening a difficult situation for a great many Canadians. It is costing Albertans about $200 million this year, according to the provincial treasurer.
Will the minister commit to stop the capping of these programs for the residents of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario which amount to more than 15 million Canadians?

April 8, 1992
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, payments under the Canada Assistance Plan have grown from about $4 billion in 1984-85 to over $7 billion in this fiscal year, 1992-93.
Those payments to the so-called have provinces are growing at the rate of five per cent per year, while government expenditures are being contained in the area of 3.5 to 3.8 per cent per year.
There is recognition of the fact that these are difficult times. We have a fiscal problem. We have a debt problem, and I know the hon. member shares the view we have to deal with that as well as with the unfortunate situation that prevails across the country. We are indeed trying to do our best with the resources we have available to us.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not seem to grasp the seriousness of the situation in Edmonton, in Vegreville, and right across the country.
While he plays shell games with transfer payments, the Edmonton Food Bank last year serviced 98,000 men, women and children. Federal, provincial and municipal governments have to work together in this crisis. I would ask the minister if he is prepared to co-operate with all governments in Canada, including the three so-called have provinces in order to help Canadians get out of this crisis?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have just answered that question. We are increasing over-all Canada Assistance Plan payments to all provinces by something like 5.4 per cent and 5 per cent on an annual basis to Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.


JUSTICE
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The Crown prosecutor who ordered the arrest of Kitty Nowdluk-Reynolds, an aboriginal woman who had been brutally raped, has now been appointed as director
general of the minister's Council for Aboriginal Justice Administration.
Kitty was dragged across Canada and even confined in a van with the rapist.
As the minister who created this program, does the appointment of Don Avison, that very Crown prosecutor, meet the minister's vision of trust and respect that she has said is needed between the justice system and aboriginal peoples?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is being fair she will know, if she has reviewed that file as closely as I have, that the problem was not with the Crown prosecutor.
Those who were responsible for Ms. Nowdluk's treatment are now being investigated. My colleague, the Solicitor General, has this file under his full advisement.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, this is the very Crown prosecutor who ordered the arrest of this aboriginal woman but also justified publicly on television the subsequent events that happened to this woman.
How can the minister allow the appointment of someone who has been so incredibly insensitive to aboriginal women?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, when I was in Yellowknife in September with the federal-provincial meeting of ministers responsible for justice, I had the opportunity to see how this individual was received in his community and how he was regarded by aboriginal and other women in that community.
I am very confident that he is in fact uniquely suited to carry out this responsibility and will do so credibly.


GRAIN HANDLING INDUSTRY
Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period I was informed that the labour dispute between the Alberta Wheat Pool and local 333 of the grain workers' union in Vancouver has been settled.
This is good news for suffering Alberta grain farmers, but these disputes and the disruption in their lives are getting altogether too common.
April 8, 1992

Is the minister prepared to add some degree of certainty to our grain farmers and to their customers by declaring the grain handling industry an essential service from a labour relations perspective?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm what the hon. member for Red Deer has said. In fact the work stoppage with the Alberta grain handling people is over and the work has resumed in Vancouver at the Alberta grain terminal.
With regard to the broader context of this issue, I would like to tell the House that our labour relations system in Canada works quite well. In 1991 we did manage to settle over 95 per cent of the collective agreements without any work stoppage.
However, it appears that the work stoppages seem to occur in the same areas. I have two areas in mind. I can certainly tell my hon. friend that in the area he is referring to, the grain industry, I will look with management, the wheat pools and unions at ways to improve the system. It is a concern to us and we know it is a concern to the farm community. We are going to do something about it.


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The government said that from now on the provinces would have to provide funding for cases involving language and equality rights. Did the government consult the provinces and the territories to ensure they would be ready to provide this funding? If so, when? And what transpired? If not, why did the government say what it did?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to the Court Challenges Program. The hon. member knows that this has been answered in the House on a number of occasions by the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
Oral Questions
The purpose of the decision was that a considerable bank of jurisprudence had been established in this particular area. This was never intended as a permanent program. We believed that the program had served its purpose and that if any further funding was required it could be funded by the private sector or by the provinces. That is consistent with the original intention of the program.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether or not the provinces had been consulted and what were the results of that consultation.

My supplementary is directed to the same minister. The Prime Minister praised the Beaudoin-Dobbie report on the government's constitutional proposals, including one of its main recommendations: "the vitality and development of the language and culture of French speaking and English speaking minority communities throughout Canada". On several occasions he said he was committed to equality rights.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to reinstate the Court Challenges Program or consider another program that would offer support similar to what we had before the program was abolished?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is really the same question asked in a different form.
The answer simply is that it is the intention of the government to discontinue the program because it has served its purpose. It has established a bank of jurisprudence upon which any future decisions can be made.


BROADCASTING
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Cable companies are trying to sell consumers more American channels and if they do not want to buy in they lose Canadian channels that they already have such as Much Music/Musique Plus. This represents a potential loss of income from advertising and audience ratings will go down. The negative impact on our business communi-

April 8, 1992
Oral Questions
ties, our broadcasters and independent producers, to say nothing of the Canadian artist who earns an average of under $1,000 a month, will be devastating.
Will the minister ask the CRTC to investigate the financial and cultural impact of the introduction of more American channels on the Canadian broadcasting system?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications, I will take the member's question under consideration and will submit it to my colleague when he gets back to the House.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the question will be transmitted to the Minister of Communications.
In the meantime I ask this minister who responds if he thinks it makes very much good common practical sense for Canadian consumers to be punished and not to be allowed to maintain and retain their Canadian programs if they choose to buy more American? Does that make any logical sense to him?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that this government, through its different Ministers of Communications, has always taken the interests of the Canadian public to heart and will continue to do so.


AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Space Agency has a regional goal for spending 10 per cent of its budget in Atlantic Canada.
Two years ago the Minister of Science reconfirmed this commitment and acknowledged they were a little behind. We now have a very active aerospace industry in Atlantic Canada.
Would the minister reconfirm this commitment, ensure an effort to achieve the 10 per cent goal and indicate what steps the industry could take to achieve the 10 per cent goal?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to confirm to my hon. colleague that indeed the goal is still 10 per cent for the Canadian Space Agency to spend in Atlantic Canada.
Furthermore, we have asked our Industry, Science and Technology offices in Atlantic Canada to close up their relationships with the Canadian Space Agency, to ensure that those companies in Atlantic Canada that can and are willing to meet the standards are known to the Canadian Space Agency and we can get on with increasing the number. As my hon. friend says it is now slightly below the number. We will meet the target.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
As I informed his office this morning, a woman citizen of Honduras, Sylvia Ortiz Medina Cajina, is due for early removal back to the United States and perhaps to Honduras with her three children, one of them Canadian-born. This is in direct violation of backlog procedures.
Mrs. Cajina's husband, with whom she was living when she was arrested and detained, has been in the backlog since 1988 still waiting for a hearing of his refugee claim. In accordance with refugee backlog procedures, she was assured in 1990 by an immigration officer that no enforcement action would be taken against her until her husband's case was heard.
Therefore I ask the minister to intervene and to stop the deportation of this mother and children until the husband's case has been heard.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that deportation of the person and children in question is not imminent. As he raised the matter with my office this morning, I am looking into it and should be able to report to him as soon as I have further developments.
jk *	*


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Today Statistics Canada announced that its help wanted index declined another three points during the month of March. This means the index fell a full 10 points during the first quarter of this year and the
April 8, 1992

nation-wide index is now 13 points lower compared with March 1991.
Why will the Minister of Finance not admit that Canadians need help in finding work? Why will he not do something more to help Canadians get jobs instead of just sitting back and letting this decline continue?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why we have taken steps to stimulate the housing industry. I am pleased that there has been a very positive response.
Over 12,500 households have taken advantage of the lower down payment under the CMHC program. A number of people are taking advantage of the RRSP proposal. There is some indication that the strengthening of the U.S. economy has caused the merchandise trade to improve.
We have had the first month of growth since July. The initiatives in the budget will improve the competitiveness and will help particularly the manufacturing and processing sector. Motor vehicle sales have improved somewhat.
I realize that the recovery is slow. The economy is still weak but there are positive signs. I think the hon. member should be encouraged by that.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister is contradicted by his own Department of Finance which predicted that unemployment will average 10.1 per cent this year.
Why will the minister not recognize what his own department said during the announcement of the budget, recognize that Canadians need more than his words? They need some active help from this government so they can get back to work. Is it not time he acted and did not simply repeat the same old thing?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that we have a weak economy. We are going through a major restructuring and adjustment program and the federal government is helping in that process.
Those are the adjustments that have to take place if Canada is going to compete in a globalized economy. Those are the kinds of initiatives that have to take place
Routine Proceedings
if we are going to create jobs on a sustainable basis over the long term.
The duty of government is to try to create a positive environment for that action to take place, for rebuilding and modernization to take place and for new investment to occur. The budget provides the framework for that to happen.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of some of Canada's Winter Olympic athletes and their coaches.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Tariff, and I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for consideration of this motion.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 17 petitions.
[Editor's Notes: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, the annual report for the 1990-91 crop year of the Canadian Wheat Board. Pursuant to Standing Order

April 8, 1992
Routine Proceedings
32(5), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, returning to the House the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find consent for the following motion:
That six members and two staff of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Tirade be authorized to travel to Moscow and Kiev from April 10 to April 18, 1992 in relation to its study of conditions in the former republics of the Soviet Union.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for this motion. It recognizes the heroic deeds of the flight attendant Sonia Hartwick and the survivors of flight 1363, and of course all the heroics that day by the community of Dryden following the Air Ontario crash of March 10, 1989.
Having said that, I would like to thank all the members for their indulgence and their understanding of the
importance of this motion to the people involved. The motion reads:
That this House and the Government of Canada publicly acknowledge and recognize the heroic acts of flight attendant Sonia Hartwick, the survivors of flight 1363 and the men and women of the town of Dryden who were involved in the rescue efforts at the Air Ontario crash on March 10, 1989.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues from both sides of the House in recognizing the heroic efforts of flight attendant, Sonia Hartwick, the survivors and the men and women of the town of Dryden and its surrounding area.
As I said upon release of Justice Moshansky's commission report, I extend every sympathy to the families of the victims, and indeed to the survivors who suffered such trauma from this sad tragedy.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my caucus and the residents of northwestern Ontario whom I represent, I want to indicate our support for this motion.
Certainly the people who live in my riding who were rescued from that burning aircraft by the people of Dryden dearly thank them for their efforts and the efforts of Sonia Hartwick in ensuring that as many people survived that crash as was possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to put the following motion jointly on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Skeena and myself:
That the government evaluate the benefit to all Canadians of including the Thtsenshini Alsek watershed for protection as wilderness, thus allowing the area to become part of the 12 per cent of Canada preserved and protected in its natural state as recommended unanimously by this House on June 17, 1991.
The member for Skeena and myself realize that if unanimous consent is not granted we could proceed in the normal fashion. But we feel, given the nature of this motion and its background, that it would be preferable to proceed in the way I have outlined, that is to say, jointly.
April 8, 1992


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, while it is certainly agreed that this is a very beautiful part of Canada, the fact is that there is an EARP screening under way now in terms of potential developments in that area.
It may well be that the screening will indicate the necessity for a full public review under EARP to determine whether there is any significant environmental impact by the proposed developments in that area.
In view of what is going on at this time, I respectfully have to say that we should follow due process as opposed to the exceptional process of unanimous consent at this time.


An hon. member:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no further debate. Unless the hon. member for Skeena has something he would like to say in this regard I think there will be another way for him to approach the subject.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I understand the remarks of the government House leader and I would therefore simply move the motion, seconded by the member for Lasalle-Emard:
That the government evaluate the benefit to all Canadians of including the Thtsenshini Alsek watershed for protection as wilderness, thus allowing the area to become part of the 12 per cent of Canada preserved and protected in its natural state as recommended unanimously by this House on June 17, 1991, and that this simply be placed as is normally allowed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


PETITIONS
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg -St. James):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and privilege to present petitions on behalf of approximately 12,500 Manitobans who are deeply concerned about the serious and harmful effects of pornography. They are
Routine Proceedings
opposed to the production, sale, and rental of hard core and obscene material in Canada.
The petitioners are concerned about the destructive influences leading to sexual assault upon women and children and they rightly point out that men too are victims of pornography. They humbly call upon Parliament to uphold the present laws on obscenity.
These petitioners have my full support.


William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my honour and pleasure to present a petition on behalf of 5,975 Atlantic Canadians who are also opposed to the production, sale, and rental of hard core and obscene material in Canada because of the associated negative and destructive influences leading to sexual assault upon women and children and also the negative effects on men.
They urge Parliament to strictly uphold the present laws on obscenity and I too support their position.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 with over 3,100 names from the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and from my home province of Alberta as well. Likewise, these people are very concerned about the sale of pornographic material and the rental of videos in this situation as well. I would like to say that this is an incredible number of people. I think what we have seen in the House today is all party support for these people who have come forward saying: "We humbly pray that the government would strictly uphold the present laws on obscenity". Pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am glad to participate in presenting this petition.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I too have petitions with some 13,000 signatures from people in the province of Ontario who state they are opposed to the production, sale and rental of hard core and obscene material in Canada because of the associated negative and destructive influences leading to sexual assault upon women and children, degradation, exploitation and humiliation. Pornography also claims men as its victims through obsession, addiction, moving of criminals and auto-erotic suicides.
These petitioners ask Parliament to strictly uphold the present laws on obscenity.

April 8, 1992
Routine Proceedings RIDEAU RIVER


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to present a petition that was sent to me by my constituents following the latest householder I put out in my riding. This petition states:
Whereas a clean and healthy environment is fundamental to our economic and social well-being and;
Whereas, past neglect of our environment has had a negative impact on many communities, one of which is the pollution of our rivers and streams and;
Whereas, the Rideau River in my riding of Ottawa- Vanier that has become polluted through many years of neglect, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ask the federal government to enter into an equal partnership with provincial and municipal governments to develop a plan of action for the clean-up and maintenance of the Rideau River.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of constituents who feel that while Canada has recently had an enviable record of compassion for the underprivileged and especially refugees now, Canadian taxpayers have spent unjustifiably exorbitant amounts of funds on a determination system that has proved to be inequitable and ineffective as the delays in processing claims has caused grave physical, social, psychological and emotional harm to the claimants, their families and those who assist them.
Therefore, your petitioners call for and ask that a grant of a general amnesty be given to all refugee claimants presently in Canada, subject to the exclusion only of those who have serious criminal records in Canada or records abroad for offences that would be considered serious in Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition from residents in Ontario and British Columbia, over 200 in number, petitioning the House to call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Brazilian government to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.


POVERTY
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petitions signed by over 600 Canadians from eveiy region of the country. They say that women in Canada are living in poverty after many years of home-making which allowed their husbands to pursue careers without the burden of childbearing and housework. Many of these women are disentitled by divorce to an equal share in their husband's federal pension credits which were accumulated during their marriage.
The petition requests Parliament to amend all federal superannuation acts to allow for retroactive pension splitting for all divorced spouses so that they may receive one half of the pension credits they deserve. This would simply take an amendment to Bill C-55 which is before the House now. I hope that all members will support these petitioners in their desire for fairness.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by a number of residents of Thunder Bay. They point out that this government had promised to freeze unemployment insurance premiums for three years and that a recent decision last year to increase those premiums is unfair and insensitive to small businesses during hard economic times. They point out that further job losses due to business closures would further impair the changes for a full recovery, something we heard earlier today.
The petitioners, therefore, call upon Parliament to freeze unemployment insurance premium rates at the 1991 level for one year.


REFUGEES
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to table a petition on behalf of 5,000 Canadians who wish to draw to the attention of this House the deplorable fate of refugee claimants in Canada.
The delay in processing claims has caused great physical, social, psychological and emotional harm to the claimants, their families and those who assist them. Canadian taxpayers have spent unjustifiably exorbitant amounts of funds on a determination system that has proved to be inequitable and ineffective.
April 8, 1992

Until recently, Canada has had an enviable record of compassion for the underprivileged, especially refugees. The petitioners humbly pray and request Parliament to grant an amnesty to all refugee claimants presently in Canada subject to the exclusion only of those who have serious criminal records in Canada.


CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION PLAN
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to present a petition to the House of Commons. This one comes from people from across Canada, but primarily from my constituency in Victoria. It asks the House to enact a federal criminal injuries compensation plan. In particular, it endorses a bill which I have introduced for the House.
It was originally Bill C-310. It has now been reintroduced and I hope that the House will agree with the petitioners and enact the legislation.


DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty on behalf of 100 or so petitioners from the province of Quebec to call upon the Government of Canada and the United Nations to impose sanctions upon the Dominican Republic. The sanctions deal with the trade in human labourers between the Dominican Republic and Haiti.


JUSTICE
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand -Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to present this House with a number of petitions on behalf of the family of Nina de Villiers. I have a number of petitions signed by people from throughout Haldimand-Norfolk. They call upon this government to bring amendments and to deal with tragic situations such as that, to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act and the Parole Act accordingly.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
Routine Proceedings


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers, I am sure you are abundantly aware that under P-8 and P-9, I have had one notice in relation to the documents pertaining to the transferring of federal jurisdiction in the area of fisheries since September 23, 1991.
Regarding P-9,1 have had a notice in relation to copies of documents pertaining to U.S. nuclear navy submarine traffic in Canada's internal waters at Dickson entrance since October 9, 1991.
The months are starting to slip by in rather rapid succession. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could advise me whether or not perhaps one day later this week these documents could be made available to me and to the House.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that the information on P-8 is still being collected and I hope would be available soon. I apologize that I cannot give him a strict answer as to when that would be, but I understand that they are in that process and hopefully it will be completed fairly quickly.
I also understand on P-9 that someone from the department will be in touch with him regarding some of the information there. They will have a conversation which may be helpful to him and then help us in proceeding with the tabling of those documents.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

April 8, 1992
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


A. Kim Campbell: that Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual assault), be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to submit to the House for second reading, Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code respecting sexual assault.
This legislation has been debated thoroughly in the media and elsewhere so I am sure most members will be familiar with it. Most important, it has received resounding support from women's organizations, women's groups and many Canadians who have recognized that the very essence of the legal system rests in its accessibility to all Canadians and in its ability to address, in a fair and balanced way, the concerns and needs of the people it is meant to serve.
As members know, on August 22, 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down section 276 of the Criminal Code, which was commonly known as the rape shield provision in the cases of Regina v. Seaboyer and Regina v. Gayme. Section 276 prohibited the use of evidence in sexual assault cases of a victim's previous sexual activity in certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 276 overshot the mark in protecting complainants by excluding evidence that could be relevant to the defence. It was, therefore, a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I must emphasize here that, although the old "rape shield" provision was struck down, the philosophy behind the provision has never been criticized or questioned. Both the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada and the dissenting opinion supported the underlying philosophy and aims of the provision. The only dispute relates to how those aims should be achieved.
This is what Bill C-49 addresses. The fundamental principles which gave shape to the original rape shield law should remain constant. As Madam Justice EHeu-reux-Dube of the Supreme Court of Canada has said, sexual assault is not like any other crime. It is a crime which can victimize men, women and children, with appalling and lasting effects. And it affects the life of almost every woman, whether or not she has been sexually assaulted herself. The high rate of sexual assault, and the constant fear of victimization, cast the daily lives of women in ways which, sadly, most of us now consider unremarkable.

As a society, we now frequently acknowledge that historically the law has not served complainants of sexual assault well.
Both the majority and the minority judgments in the Seaboyer case refer to old and notorious rules of evidence which permitted liberal and often inappropriate admission of evidence of the complainant's sexual conduct and which often allowed fishing expeditions into the complainant's sexual past.
As many people pointed out, the question of whether the accused was guilty or innocent had a tendency to be transformed into an inquiry as to whether the complainant was morally worthy of the law's protection. Some of the old, unwritten common law rules were based on the assumption that a complainant with sexual experience was a complainant who was less worthy of belief and who was more likely to have consented to the sexual activity in question.
Those were some of the old myths and stereotypes which the old section 276 sought to address and although the majority judgment of the Supreme Court found that section 276 reached too far in its attempt to correct past wrongs, it also acknowledged the legitimacy of Parliament's policy in enacting that section. It recognized that sexual assault complainants must be protected, that improper fishing expeditions should be a thing of the past.
Parliament now has the opportunity to build on this principle and to express it in our criminal law in a fashion that will restore the confidence of victims of sexual assault in the criminal justice system and will articulate
April 8, 1992

for all Canadians the delicate balance between the rights of victims and the rights of accused persons.
I must emphasize that the rights of the accused are equally important. There has been some criticism that these rights have not been given appropriate attention in this bill, but I can assure you that this is simply not the case.

In the Seaboyer case, the majority of the Supreme Court held that the exceptions provided in section 276 were too narrow and did not provide the accused with an opportunity to present a full answer and defence in every case. The Court indicated that given the primacy in our system of justice of the principle that the innocent should not be convicted, the right to present one's case should not be curtailed without an assurance that the curtailment is clearly justified by even stronger contrary considerations.
This principle is recognized and indeed underscored in the provisions of Bill C-49. In our attempts to ensure that all those who come before the law are treated fairly, we must never exact as a price the real risk that an innocent person may be convicted. Accused persons must always have access to a legitimate and full defence, and hence a fair trial. The criminal justice system is based on this fundamental principle, and it has guided the development of this bill every step of the way.

Also forming a basis for this bill is a broader principle, one that was emphasized during the consultation process. It is simply this. All men, women and children must have autonomy over their own lives and more specifically, their bodies. They must have the right to make decisions about their lives including their sexual lives without the fear that those decisions will later be subject to unfair scrutiny and misinterpretation.
This fundamental principle goes to the heart of what it means for anyone to live in a democratic country such as Canada. It must inform every aspect of our laws and indeed it is an integral part of the provisions of this bill.
Government Orders
The Supreme Court has reminded us that we must seek a middle way that protects the complainant but maintains the accused's fundamental right to a fair trial.
I am confident that through the provisions of Bill C-49 we have indeed found the middle way. In doing so, we closely followed guidelines which the Supreme Court of Canada suggested in the absence of legislation for the reception and use of evidence of the complainant's sexual activity. These guidelines are in fact the backbone of the proposed legislative amendments governing evidentiary issues.
There is no blanket prohibition on the admissibility of evidence of sexual conduct. Each case will be determined on its merits according to the test in Bill C-49. The purposes for which evidence may and may not be used are addressed. The right of the accused to make a full answer and defence are paramount. Fundamental principles governing the trial process and the reception of evidence are reflected in the amendments. And the focus is not only on the evidence itself but also on the use to which it is put.

The provisions of Bill C-49 have also been moulded by the current realities of the lives of sexual assault victims. In the consultations which led up to these amendments, the individuals and groups most affected by the striking down of section 276 have spoken with one voice.
Last June in Vancouver, at the symposium on women, law and the administration of justice, women's groups emphasized that effective law reform requires the input of the people the law seeks to serve.
The input I have received from Canadian women has been very troubling. They have very little confidence in the Canadian justice system as it deals with sexual assault. They have indicated that the admissibility of evidence of a complainant's past sexual history is only one, albeit important, aspect of the inadequacy of our sexual assault laws.
As Minister of Justice, I acknowledge this reality. I have ensured that the principles on which this bill is based and the philosophy it reflects address the concerns of the women and men who spoke so eloquently to me and my officials as we undertook the development of this bill. I felt it was essential that the bill reflect this process.

April 8, 1992
Government Orders

To highlight the importance of the principles underlying these amendments, Bill C-49 includes the unique feature of a preamble. The preamble sets out Parliament's policy in enacting the bill. It speaks of Parliament's grave concern about the incidents of sexual violence and abuse in Canadian society. It recognizes the unique character of the offence of sexual assault.
The preamble also addresses the driving force behind this bill, appropriate protection for the complainant, specifically in relation to the use of evidence of his or her sexual history.
Bill C-49 will subject the admission of evidence of the complainant's sexual activity to meticulous scrutiny. The preamble also sets out in black and white the fundamental principle that the rights of accused persons must not be infringed. Offenders shall continue to be prosecuted within a framework of laws that is consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.
Let me outline the specifics of the bill. Bill C-49 addresses three key issues regarding sexual assault.
First, as mentioned earlier, it proposes a new test that judges will use to determine whether a complainant's sexual history may be admitted at trial. It will contain clear direction on how the admissibility of such evidence must be determined. Second, it provides a definition of consent for the purpose of sexual assault offences. Third, it restricts the defence of mistaken belief in consent for the purpose of sexual assault.
The central feature of Bill C-49 relates to evidence concerning the past sexual history of the complainant, the victim of the alleged sexual assault.
The Supreme Court recognized that the complainant's reputation and past sexual history are not relevant to the issue of consent nor are they relevant to the credibility of the complainant.
The package of the new legislative provisions will ensure that the admission of any sexual history evidence is subject to meticulous scrutiny in an in camera or closed hearing to assess whether it has a legitimate purpose, whether it is relevant and to examine its prejudicial effect on the trial process.
The proposed provision follows from the first principle outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada. The fact that the complainant has engaged in other sexual activity with any person, including the accused, should not lead to the inference that the complainant is more likely to have consented to the sexual activity in question, nor should it lead to the inference that the complainant is less worthy of belief.
This provision clearly states that evidence that the complainant has engaged in sexual activity is not admissible solely for these purposes. In other words, people should not be regarded as more likely to have consented or as less credible by the simple fact of their sexual experience.
Bill C-49 does not prohibit the admission of evidence of sexual activity. Such a prohibition would clearly violate the accused's rights. Rather, the evidence of the complainant's sexual activity would be admissible only if it related to specific instances of sexual activity which are relevant to the case and if it would not unfairly prejudice the administration of justice. This follows from the test for admissibility suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada.
In addition, the new law, while giving trial judges the difficult task of weighing and assessing the evidence, will also guide and assist them by requiring them to consider a series of factors emphasizing the policy underlying these amendments.
Bill C-49 re-enacts and improves the procedures that govern whether evidence of previous sexual activity will be admissible. It also provides basic protection for sexual assault victims to ensure that victims are not re-victimized by the very system that is meant to protect them.
The procedural provisions set out a two-stage procedure. First, a judge must consider whether the accused's detailed written application provides a sufficient basis to hold a hearing to consider the admissibility of the evidence. If satisfied, the judge must then hold an in camera or closed hearing to determine whether the evidence is admissible in accordance with the new test for admissibility.
Under the new test judges must consider a series of factors set out in the legislation when making a determination of admissibility. Moreover, the bill requires that judges provide detailed reasons for their decision whether to admit such evidence.
April 8, 1992

Amendments are also included in the bill to restore basic protections for victims. The public and the jury are excluded from the hearing. The victim cannot be compelled to be a witness, although he or she may voluntarily take the stand. Evidence taken or information given at the hearing shall not be published in any newspaper or broadcast.
I feel very strongly about these provisions. They are essential in order to protect victims from embarrassment, to preserve their privacy and dignity and to encourage their co-operation in prosecutions.
Another key area addressed in the bill concerns the concept of consent. No one can deny that every person has the right to make decisions about their body, including whether or not to engage in sexual activity. Yet historically false assumptions and myths have intruded into the law regarding the issue of consent to sexual activity.
The press have termed Bill C-49 the no means no bill.
Bill C-49 does much more. The consent provisions are crucial. For the first time in Canadian history the bill defines the type of conduct that constitutes consent in sexual assault cases and specifically lists certain types of situations in which consent is not possible.

Consent is defined as the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in sexual activity. This definition is the ordinary, common sense meaning of consent. As a matter of law, conduct that falls short of a voluntary agreement is not consent.
Particular situations are specified where, as a matter of law, there is no consent. Specifically, no consent is obtained where: the agreement to engage in the sexual activity in question is given by someone else, not the complainant; the complainant is incapable of consenting because of intoxication or other condition; the complainant engages in the activity because of the accused's abuse of a position of trust or authority; the complainant shows, by words or conduct, that he or she does not consent to the activity; and the complainant shows, by words or conduct, that he or she no longer consents to the activity.
Government Orders
Furthermore, the list of situations in which no consent is obtained is not exhaustive, that is there will be other situations in which the law will find no consent to have been obtained.

Last but certainly not least, the bill addresses the area of mistaken belief in consent. Under the current law an accused is innocent if he or she mistakenly believed the complainant was consenting to the sexual activity in question. The mistaken belief must have been honestly held but need not have been reasonable in order for the accused to be judged innocent. This common law principle has been widely criticized as condoning mistaken but unreasonable sexual aggression.
The proposed legislation will both clarify and restrict the circumstances under which an accused can claim mistaken belief and consent. It will expressly state that the accused may not claim that he or she believed the complainant consented to the activity where the accused's belief arose from the accused's self-induced intoxication or the accused's belief arose from the accused's own recklessness or wilful blindness. This provision would essentially codify the prevailing common law in these areas. Moreover, belief in consent will not be a defence unless the accused took all reasonable steps in the circumstance known to the accused at the time to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.
This will substantially modify the law in relation to mistaken belief and consent. The judge must determine whether the accused took all reasonable steps in the circumstances known to the accused at the time to be sure that the complainant was consenting. What constitutes all reasonable steps will vary according to the particular circumstances. The legal concept expressed in the word reasonable adapts itself to each individual situation.
This amendment reflects the realities of the 1990s and the responsibilities of all people to their sexual partners. As we look around us we can hardly deny that the landscape, particularly with regard to sexual activity, has changed dramatically. Recognition of the fundamental rights of women has redefined the way we approach our relationships. Clearly consent to sexual activity cannot be assumed, presumed or believed unless reasonable steps have been taken to ascertain that consent has in

April 8, 1992
Government Orders
fact been given. Common sense and responsible conduct so demand.
The process by which this bill came to be has been hectic, sometimes controversial but absolutely necessary. Public reaction to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision was swift. Canadians are concerned that in striking down section 276 the Supreme Court decision leaves a void in the law which puts complainants of sexual defences at risk of having evidence of their sexual activities unnecessarily exposed and used indiscriminately. Clearly I could not put victims of sexual assault at risk of an uncertain application of the law. As I have often said, individual women and men who have suffered victimization must never be put in a situation where they are victimized again.

I, of course, was not alone in recognizing the urgency of this matter. Immediately after the Supreme Court's decision, I was called upon by national women's groups and by attorneys general across the country for prompt legislative action to fill the void created by the Supreme Court decision. I committed myself to an immediate consultative process, and to the introduction of legislation before Christmas. The response was veiy positive, and I can assure you this bill is keenly awaited.
The extensive consultations which have taken place with national women's and victims' groups, with provincial and territorial governments, and with the Canadian Bar Association have brought home to me and to many others the fundamental importance of public consultations.
Clearly the development of social policy benefits from, and indeed demands, the participation of those it will serve. The process we used in the development of this bill was very successful, and I intend to apply it in other areas of significant social policy development as well.

The Bill C-49 consultation process provided valuable information and insight into the problems faced by sexual assault victims. I believe that these amendments respond to many of these concerns. But it is also important to note that no single point of view has prevailed to the exclusion of the others. The bill is sensitive to the delicate balance between the rights of the accused to a fair trial in accordance with the
principles of fundamental justice and the right of the victim of a sexual assault to the full protection of the criminal justice system.
I want to assure those who have taken such an interest in the bill that the consultation process is not over. These amendments, some of which are no doubt novel and controversial, will be studied in detail by a committee of this House. Interested groups and individuals will have the opportunity to present briefs and make submissions.
I welcome a lively and stimulating discussion at committee stage and I am always receptive to improvements in the law. Sexual violence and the fear of sexual violence affects everyone in Canada.
I want to state unequivocally that the Government of Canada will not tolerate violence of any kind against any person or group of persons in Canada, nor do we condone the view that a certain level of violence is somehow acceptable or inevitable.

Our commitment to Canadians to address their concerns about violence in our society is ongoing.
Bill C-49 is an important part of this process. The federal government has made significant progress elsewhere as well, through such efforts as Canada's drug strategy and the federal family violence initiative, to address some of the fundamental causes of violence in Canada.

I also pledge to Canadians that we will continue to examine our laws to ensure that they are not only effective in addressing violence, but also fair, balanced and responsive to the needs, concerns and values of Canadians. Such responsiveness is absolutely essential if we expect Canadians to believe in, support and abide by the law.
The provisions of Bill C-49 are an important part of this endeavour and I trust that you will provide this bill with your support.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to be able to reply in this debate on Bill C-49.
I want to thank the minister for the introduction of this bill. I would say to her that this is one of the most important justice bills that has come before this House in
April 8, 1992

many years. I would rank it along with gun control and certain other legislation.
I want to impress upon people who are watching and members in this House the significance of this. I want to give them some idea of what exactly is going on in this country. We have tremendous problems in Canada. We have constitutional problems and we have great financial problems but there is one thing that is going on that is very interesting and very exciting. It is the creation of law and the definition by the activity of our courts, politicians, society and interest groups of honing justice in this country.
As an example I want to use the recent decision of the Butler case. This was a case with our obscenity laws that was recently handed down by our Supreme Court. The decision was nine to nothing. What that decision really stated was that our obscenity laws are for the protection of our women and children and not to try to maintain the moral standard in Canada.
That is a landmark finding, a landmark definition and a landmark decision world-wide. No other country I know of has reached that kind of decision or defined obscenity in that particular way. That is tremendously important because it takes away the stereotype that we have had and necessarily so. They must look at obscenity as a cancer in society. By looking at that and relating that to violence against women and violence against children we put obscenity in its proper perspective. The court did that. That is interesting and it has attracted world-wide attention.
In this case as well we have a tremendous amount of world-wide attention because violence against women and violence against the family and urban violence in general is of tremendous concern to every country in the world. I want to come back to that later. First of all I want to recount exactly how we got to where we are. I think it is important to look at it.
Prior to 1983 we had the situation where the complainant who was charged with sexual assault could be cross-examined on her prior sexual conduct in common law. She was really, in a lot of cases, the person who was on trial. She was not the accused. She was not the defendant. But in some cases the actual investigation into her past sexual conduct took over the whole theme of the case. This made it a tremendously trying experience for any woman who brought an action of sexual assault or rape. It was tremendously unfair to the extent
Government Orders
that women did not want to bring these charges. They would actually suffer the injury and indignity rather than go to court to get the justice she deserved.
Depending on her answers, of course, sometimes the judge would take an adverse inference and instruct the jury that the woman was not creditable or that she consented to intercourse. That would sometimes be the result of the action brought by the woman.
In 1983, in order to limit the power of the judges, the government brought forward an amendment to section 276 of the Criminal Code. This stated that no evidence could be adduced by or on behalf of the accused concerning sexual activity of the complainant with any person other than the accused except in three circumstances.
One was if the Crown brought forward evidence as to the sexual activity of the complainant. Then, of course, the accused was able to bring forward evidence to counter that evidence brought forward by the Crown.
The second case was where it could be alleged that it was not the accused who committed the sexual assault but someone else. The accused was able to bring forward evidence to refute that it was he who in fact caused the sexual assault.
The third case was where it could be alleged by the accused that the complainant had indulged in sexual activity with someone else at the same time or in direct consequence or sequence to the time she alleges she had sexual intercourse or sexual activity with the accused. Those three areas were the ones that were the exceptions.
In December 1991, in the case of Seaboyer v. the Queen, the Supreme Court of Canada threw out this section 276 which came to be known as the rape shield provision and invalidated it saying it was contrary to the accused's rights under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 under the heading of Legal Rights says:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, and
the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the
principle of fundamental justice.
The court in the decision delivered by Madam Justice McLachlin said that the right of the accused to fundamental justice had been breached. She said that these rules were not satisfactory, that they breached fundamental justice. Representing not only herself but the majority of the Supreme Court decision, she brought in other criteria that would be applied in the courts. She

April 8, 1992
Government Orders
brought in the other regulations to assure that these common law rules in 276 would not reappear.
There are a lot of people who have said that this was terrible, that this decision in the Seaboyer v. The Queen case was wrong, that it did away with 276 and that was the wrong way to go.
In the relationship we have in Canada we make the laws and the Supreme Court of Canada judges in conjunction with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms what is right not only, as the Minister of Justice said, for the complainant but for the accused as well. It is important that fundamental justice be applied. If it can be found by the Supreme Court of Canada that this fundamental justice is being breached, regardless of whether it is the complainant or the accused it is important to remedy it.
While we want justice for the complainant, we also want to make sure that the accused's rights are protected. This is not just going to be the case in rape and sexual assault. It is going to be the case ultimately in other areas whereby the rights of one party or the other can be abused.
It is fundamental that we not allow an abuse of our law to continue to exist in this country because once it exists it can exist more easily a second time and before we know it we have the erosion of fundamental rights and justice in Canada.
It was evident that we could not leave the situation as a result of the Seaboyer case the way it was. As a result in December 1991 the minister brought forward Bill C-49. It has a few aspects, but particularly it was the admissibility of the past activity of the complainant. This bill relates to three main areas. First, it provides for strict guidelines in determining admissibility of the past sexual history as evidence. Second, it outlines the procedure that must be followed in admitting such evidence. Third and not least, it defines exactly what is consent. This is important because the definition of consent is fundamental to any law that is going to be brought forward to deal with this situation.
I not only want to talk about the fact that we in this party support the legislation most heartily. I also want to talk about the fundamental justice of what is being
attempted here. All parties would agree that this is important and all parties would agree that this is what we must strive for.
I want to point out some areas about which I have some concern. The first one is a concern, probably because of the fact that there has been no precedent, that for the first time in an amendment to the Criminal Code there has been included a preamble which discusses the context and rationale of the legislation. To my knowledge there has never been an amendment to the Criminal Code which has had a preamble. It is a very interesting precedent.
The question is whether it is helpful. Because of the sensitivity to court challenge and having the legislation thrown out, as I see it the government is attempting to clarify what its intention is with respect to the legislation. It is attempting to define the social importance and trying to show the court which consists mainly of men that this is an important piece of legislation, not that this represents fundamental justice but that it must represent fundamental justice for women who are placed in a very vulnerable position in our society.
We cannot say that women and men have the same problems in our society. Any man who has walked home after dark from a bus stop to his place of residence would never understand that a woman in the same situation may very well be in constant fear for her safety and maybe even for her life. A man would not understand that for every step the woman takes past every tree and every bush, every pole and every house, she may be well thinking: Is there somebody behind that object who would endanger my safety? When she gets into her apartment building, is there going to be somebody in the elevator who is going to be a problem? Is there somebody on her floor? Perhaps in certain areas. A man does not understand that.
I think government is attempting to set out for the justices, for the judges, exactly what this is like. There are those who say that a preamble can have a substantive effect and that it will be taken into consideration such as a clause in the legislation would be in reaching a decision.
April 8, 1992

If that is the case then I think that would be a real problem. That would be a very important and serious problem because that would not be the intent. I do not think it would be taken into consideration. The precedent that may be used is the Young Offenders Act, but that does not relate to a preamble. That relates to some general thought in the body of the legislation itself. I think that is important.
I also think we have to examine in committee the whole idea of a preamble to our legislation. Is it helpful? Do we really want to spoon-feed the judges? Is it going to be necessary? If we do it on this bill, are we going to have to do it on other bills? Is it really something we want to do? Is it absolutely necessary?
It is an important question. It is a precedent. It should be discussed. I think that preambles are something that can be a problem if we do not deal with this very novel concept as far as this type of action is concerned.
The other aspects that I want to talk about relate to the actual consent and to the other matters addressed by the minister. As I mentioned, it is very important to have the definition of consent because in the definition we are saying to the judges: "This is what we determine consent. We are not leaving it to you to define consent. This is consent". The judges will then look upon the definition and determine the actual definition as to whether or not consent has been given. It is a bold innovation.
I want to read the section that deals with the exceptions to consent.
Section 273.1(2) says:
(2) No consent is obtained, for the purposes of sections 271, 272,
and 273, where
(a)	the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;
(b)	the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity by reason of intoxication or other condition;
(c)	the complainant engages in the activity by reason of the accused's abuse of a position of trust or authority;
(d)	the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or
(e)	the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a revocation of agreement to engage in the activity.
Government Orders
It is important that these exceptions be well drafted and be tight. If they are not we could cause a problem which would lead to the actual well-being of the legislation itself.
We want to protect women in situations where otherwise they would have no protection whatsoever. We must remember that 276 has been struck down. We want to bring forward law that will give this protection. Not the same protection as 276. Maybe better protection, maybe not as good protection, but certainly better protection than exists without some form of law.
For that reason we have to examine this wording. When it gets to committee I am going to be interested in discussing this to make sure that the wording is as it should be. I want to mention one of the exceptions, the second one. It says:
(b)the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity by reason of intoxication or other condition;
A couple of questions arise. For instance, what other condition? The other one is: What level of intoxication?
Of course it cannot be an objective test in a situation like this. I do not mean to demean the situation but they cannot have breathalyzers. There is no means of objectively determining the level. Therefore it must be a subjective test.
Is it fair to have intoxication not available to the accused as an offence by saying he was too intoxicated. They cannot say that under this bill. They cannot use that as an excuse for the sexual assault. Nor can they use as consent the fact that the complainant was intoxicated. If the complainant was intoxicated and she still consented, that is not consent under this bill.
The fact of the matter is whether this is wrong. I do not disagree frankly that the intoxication factor should be denied to the accused as an excuse. I think that is fair.
There will be some question undoubtedly as to whether the ability to perform the actual act could have been possible under a high level of intoxication. There will be some people who will bring forward that concern. I think that is valid. That is the sort of concern we want to see and hear in committee.

Government Orders
With respect to the accused it says in section 273.2:
It is not a defence to a charge under section 271, 272 or 273 that
the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity
that forms the subject-matter of the charge, where
(a) the accused's belief arose from the accused's
(i)	self-induced intoxication, or
(ii)	recklessness or wilful blindness; or
It then goes on to (b). The minister mentioned the term recklessness or wilful blindness. It is a very obscure term. I think we have to deal with those because I am not sure what they mean. The minister does and she expressed her understanding, but I am not really sure.
My concern is if we have wording in the act that does not really mean anything or cannot be interpreted, is that going to be helpful or is it going to be harmful?
I just want to mention one more that relates to section 276(2) and refers to the introduction of evidence. It says that to introduce evidence as to the sexual activity of the complainant it must fit into three categories. The three categories are (a) the question of whether the information is of specific instances of sexual activity, (b) is relevant to an issue to be proved at trial, and (c) has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.
I have concerns as well for the words proper administration of justice. In my understanding, and I may be missing the point, the administration of justice is what is determined by the court. To use the proper administration of justice is too much of a cliche to me. Instead of the proper administration of justice, do we mean the rights of the accused and of the complainant with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If that is the case, and I would suggest that it would be, particularly of the claimant with respect to section 1 and the legal sections and equality sections, sections 7 to 15, I think rather than using the words proper administration of justice we should perhaps define it a little more to give it more of an understanding.
I do not bring these forward as a way of nit-picking. I do not mean to do that. This is a very important bill. I think it is in the interest of trying to define as solidly as we possibly can what is exactly meant, to make sure that
the rights of the accused and the rights of the complainant are represented. If the rights of both are not represented, we are going to have this case challenged and perhaps thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not think anyone wants to see that.
That is why, as the minister has said, she welcomes groups to come before the standing committee to put forward their complaints and their concerns so that we can try to define and correct the areas that need some attention.
We in the Liberal Party, as I have mentioned, are supportive of this legislation and want it to come before the committee. As a result, we are hopeful that this bill on second reading moves along quite quickly. That is not to say we are not going to put forward some speakers. As one would imagine, this being a tremendously important bill, a lot of people have interest in it and would like to speak. We certainly will not have a great number of speakers, but we will have some who want to put forward their ideas. I think that is to be encouraged.
As mentioned earlier, women's groups have been very supportive of the concept. The minister has said this. Although the phrase or the words guilty intent are usually necessary to support a criminal conviction, many find the defence of mistaken belief in consent to be offensive in rape cases, probably because it ignores the victim's feelings or behaviour during the commission of the alleged offence. I think that is a very valid comment.
What we are dealing with here is not an ordinary piece of legislation, albeit any kind of legislation, whether it is justice legislation or some other piece of legislation. This is very important for what it is attempting to do because there is not an equal basis, as I said earlier. There are certainly to be rights for the accused and rights for the complainant, but there is not a level field here between men and women. We cannot recognize that the rights of women are going to be looked upon by normal practices of common law. That has not been the case.
To more or less emphasize this, I want to say that before 1983 and the enactment of the original rape shield law, women themselves and their reputation, not the action of the rapists, were most often on trial, as I have said. Reports of sexual assaults increased by over 127 per cent from 1982 to before the rape shield law was put into place a year later.
April 8, 1992

According to the federal government's own Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, for every rape, which occurs once ever 17 minutes in this country, only one in 100 men are ever charged for the rape. The magnitude of the crime becomes even more apparent with the fact that one in every 10 men in prison are there for rape. According to a recent study in Nova Scotia, most rapists are sentenced to about two years and are back on the street in a year.
This is also very important: For every 100 cases where women do bring charges, 63 never come to trial, that is even before the case starts. For every 100 charged, only four are ever convicted and, of these, only three of the four end up in jail. You have to compare this with the statistic of a 67 per cent conviction rate for other crimes against the person. For crimes against the person generally, 67 per cent of the alleged accused are convicted. For rape, it is four out of 100, of which only three of the four ever go to jail. This says one of two things: 96 per cent of all women who press sexual assault charges are lying or our justice system is not properly handling this horrendous crime.
Certainly not for a minute would we ever believe that 96 per cent of women who bring these charges are lying. That is preposterous. Obviously it is the latter. It is glaringly apparent that new legislation, especially that which takes a new sensitized approach to the issue, is urgently needed. This is what we have in this legislation.
This legislation is being watched not only by Canadians, but by people all over the world who are struggling with this inequality against women, particularly in our urban centres. There has got to be fairness and this is what this legislation must provide. If this legislation does not provide that fairness between the complainant and the accused, it is not going to continue to exist. It is going to be thrown out by the courts and that would be very, very unfortunate because basically this is an excellent piece of legislation and very much needed.
It rests with all members of all parties in this House to make sure that we have the best piece of legislation we can get. It does not necessarily have to be one that we would like, but one that is going to work in the interests
Government Orders
of women in this country and in fact in the interests of all of society.
We need to protect women in our society. If we do not, the society that we value will crumble. If it crumbles, then what we have in this country, what we have prized in our justice system, and our sense of fairness will be gone. We as Canadians, men and women alike, will lose a great part of ourselves. We cannot allow this to happen when we have this opportunity because we have in place a system of justice that will make sure that we have the best legislation possible. We in this House of Commons should take the trouble to finely tune it to make it acceptable to the rights of both the complainant and the accused and what the judges in our courts feel is fair.
It rests with us to do this. I would hope that the government will be sensitive to the arguments put forward, that there will be the fine tuning that the minister says she welcomes, that we will be able to improve this bill so that we will have the legislation that can do the job in this society that we want to see done.
I hope that we can all work together on this, that there will be open minds and that we can bring forward the best legislation possible. I look forward to working on this and to have the chance to listen to the arguments brought forward and to do what needs to be done. If we miss this chance, we are certainly missing a chance not only for ourselves, but for women and other Canadians from coast to coast to coast.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Under Standing Order 74, the first two speakers had 40 minutes with no questions or comments. The third speaker will have 20 minutes plus questions and comments, but it is my understanding that there is unanimous consent to allow the hon. member an extra 10 minutes to finish off her speech.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-49, the new rape shield law. This really is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this House has ever debated. This is the only piece of legislation that I am aware of that has taken into account women's lives, the perspective of women and how women feel about their lives.

April 8, 1992
Government Orders
I am very pleased to see a strong preamble. It makes it clear to judges who will be the ones interpreting this law in the future that it is designed to encourage the reporting of sexual assault. It is designed to provide fairness to victims as well as the accused and guarantee the equality of rights under the charter.
The preamble also states that the Parliament of Canada believes that a victim's sexual history is rarely relevant and that Parliament is concerned about the incidence of sexual violence and abuse in Canadian society.
There is one part of the preamble that I think could be more accurate and that is the section which recognizes "how sexual assault and particularly the fear of sexual assault affect the lives of the people of Canada.". It is actually women and children who are, as we have heard in both presentations in the House today, the victims of sexual assault.
One in four women will be sexually assaulted during her lifetime. Ninety-nine per cent of the offences are committed by men.
I really do not know any men who are afraid of walking on their own street or staying alone in their own home or afraid when their partners come home from work because they are afraid of being sexually assaulted. I hope that one day we can really say that the fear of sexual assault affects the people of Canada in that I see an increasing number of men who are afraid for their daughters, their sisters, their partners, their mothers and their friends. I see these men taking responsibility now for action to end this violence.
At this stage, I believe some women and men are complacent about the issue. They blame the victim and they do not want to think about it. This must change if women are to be safe in our streets and in our homes.
This proposed legislation defines consent. It says that third parties cannot give consent on a woman's behalf. What it is saying is, do not ask her husband, do not ask her pimp, do not ask anyone else. Only the woman herself can say yes or no. This is a huge step forward. It comes away from the idea of a woman as the property of a man.
The bill states that no consent is obtained if the woman is incapable of consenting by reason of intoxication or another condition. This has two effects. If a woman has passed out at a party it is no excuse to rape her. As one Northwest Territories judge put it, men just see a pair of hips and help themselves. Women will be more than a pair of hips under the law.
The other type of rape that can be prosecuted now is sexual assault against disabled women. We are all aware in this House of one horrible case of a deaf mute woman who kicked and tried to get away from her assailant. He was not convicted because she did not say no. She was physically incapable of saying no. Now men cannot rape a deaf mute woman and get away with it.
The bill also makes a provision for abuse of authority. A woman or child who is manipulated into sex by a psychiatrist, a doctor, a police officer, a religious adviser or anyone else in a position of trust can now testify against that person.
The profession should teach their members what is appropriate behaviour toward clients and what their legal responsibilities are. This law will make it altogether better and more sensitive and the services more sensitive.
I have been told about a lawyer who has said to immigrant women of colour: "If you will go to bed with me I will go to court with you". I have heard the shocking story of how a judge did not convict a man for sexual assault against a nine-year old girl because she did not protest enough.
I know what it is like to be a young girl of 11 and have a family friend make those kinds of sexual advances toward me. I know the confusion, the fear, the feelings of betrayal of trust of someone who is older, stronger and in a position of authority, someone you feel is trusted within your own home who tries to manipulate a child into an activity the child does not understand. That abuse is against the law.
The proposed law very simply states that if the woman or the girl says she does not consent, that she does not consent. The law says no means no.
It is the first time a sexual assault law is based entirely on the facts of the case and not on the accused's beliefs. The law now will clearly state that an accused's belief that the woman wanted it is not a defence in sexual assault. He also cannot claim that he was drunk so it was okay to sexually assault the woman.
April 8, 1992

Finally we are bringing sexual assault in line with other crimes. We cannot claim that it was okay to rob someone because we believed that person wanted to be robbed. We cannot claim that it was okay to murder someone because we were drunk at the time.
It is also very important that the bill states that woman can revoke consent. It means that yes does not mean forever yes, it only means yes until a no is expressed.
The bill states that a woman's sexual history is irrelevant to her credibility or to whether she said yes or no during the instance in question.
There is an excellent analogy with robbery. Just because you may have given money away in the past, it does not give anyone the right to take money away from you in the future. Just because you were wearing an expensive suit does not mean that you were asking to be robbed. Just because you invited a friend to your home does not mean that you deserved to be robbed by them.
Sexual assault is much more than robbery. It is someone taking a part of your body and your soul, a part which means far more than any property can possibly mean to anyone.
If you are a man try to imagine how you would feel to come home and find your house trashed and the things you worked so hard for gone. Think of how angry and violated you would feel. Multiply that one hundred times and maybe you can begin to understand how a woman feels to be violated in the most personal way possible.
The bill before us leaves it up to a judge to decide whether evidence concerning a woman's sexual history is relevant to the case. The judge will hear the evidence without the public or jury present and will decide whether it can be admitted or not.
My personal belief is that the sexual history of a woman is never relevant. I do not understand why if a man has a criminal record for ten sexual assaults that that is considered irrelevant in terms of his guilt or innocence in a particular case but that a woman's sexual history is ever relevant in a trial about a crime of violence committed against her. It does not really seem fair to me.
Government Orders
The Supreme Court of Canada did strike down the old rape shield law last summer and does believe that the sexual history of the woman rather than the violent record of the man is sometimes relevant.
This is why I believe it is essential for mandatory gender sensitivity training for judges and for lawyers on these issues.
A criminal justice system should be fair and accessible to everyone. We are living in a country in which the criminal justice system is feared, suspected and avoided by a significant number of victims of crimes including women, aboriginal people and people of colour. Fortunately, the complainant would not be required by law to testify at the private hearing in which the judge examines whether he believes the woman's sexual history is relevant. This avoids the situation where she would have to testify twice which would be once at the private hearing and once at the trial if the evidence is ruled admissible.
Some people do not realize how difficult it is for most women to talk about having been sexually assaulted. It is being asked to repeat the most painful experience of one's life in great detail over and over again to strangers some of whom will call the victim a liar, crazy, unreliable or deserving of the greatest emotional pain one human being can inflict upon another.
The defence would not be able to use the voir dire as a means to harass the woman by making her testify and wearing her down even if the sexual history is ruled inadmissible.
The media would not be able to broadcast the details of a woman's sexual history that would come out of a private hearing. This would prevent a jury from hearing about it unless it is ruled admissible. It would also prevent the woman from trying to drop the case out of embarrassment and harassment on the part of elements of the public.
Some men do feel threatened by this proposed law. As one male lawyer put it, he feels that the law makes seduction a crime. This particular comment is very instructive. What some men might call seduction many women know as rape. Men who respect women have nothing to fear in any shape or form from this law. Only men who force themselves on women, who do not care what women feel or think, who think that they have some God-given right to have sex with any woman that

April 8, 1992
Government Orders
they choose and at any time. Those are the men who can be prosecuted under this law and it is about time.
I believe that most men are caring human beings who do not want to hurt women. I want other men to examine their behaviour in the light of this proposed law and think about whether the things they take for granted are in fact hurting women.
I have been a member of Parliament for over three years. During that time I have been asked to examine other pieces of legislation. This is the most clear, simple bill that I have ever dealt with. It is straightforward both in its intent and in its wording. Yet people who prefer the status quo that prosecutes the victim instead of the accused are trying to say that it is vague and misleading. The only thing that is vague and misleading is these people's assurances that they care anything at all about victims of crime. If they did they would not advocate giving the accused far more rights in this crime than in any other crime.
I was very disappointed at the attitude that was displayed in a recent letter that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association sent to the Minister of Justice on this rape shield law. They sent me a copy of their letter. The arguments that they used against the law show no understanding whatsoever of the nature of sexual assault. The letter talked about teenage petting and how sometimes no explicit consent is required for initial overtures.
When a man forces his penis into a woman without her consent that is rape whether it is a teenager or an adult male. No one is ever going to be convicted for a kiss on the cheek. If cases involving penetration cannot even come to court we are fooling ourselves to think that someone might be convicted for something like kissing and hugging.
We must not forget that most sexual assaults are not reported including debilitating assaults. People who think that the courts will be full of kissing cases are attempting to ridicule a veiy, very serious matter.
The letter goes on to ask to what extent do males and females make different assumptions about such matters? That is a valid question. We should be teaching our boys and girls the same things about what sex is and about what violence is. Boys should be brought up with a better understanding of female sexuality and what their responsibilities are.
Contraiy to what the Civil Liberties Association proposes which is to go back to the man's belief about what happened, the facts of the case can now be examined by a jury of men and women. The jury will decide, not the accused, whether a sexual assault has taken place.
We are talking about a fair law that is not based on either the complainant's beliefs or the accused's beliefs but on actual words and actions just like any other crime. Belief, reasonable or otherwise, is not a defence to any crime of violence. It is too bad that the Civil Liberties Association is unwilling to join the late 20th century on this issue. It is already difficult enough to convict on sexual assault because more often than not there are no witnesses. More often than not it is not even reported. More often than not the woman is not believed and there is no conviction.
We are talking about dangerous men who are allowed to continue to assault women because no one stops them. Death and injury can be prevented from convicting guilty parties the first time. It is barbaric and wrong to allow guilty people to go free because the law is only concerned about them and not about the victim and not about public safety.
This law is a balance between those things. For those who can only relate to the accused and see his side, try working in a rape crisis centre for two days and you will see the other side of the story. There are women attempting suicide who are at their wit's end because their assailant is free to rape others. There is no justice in that. This continuing practice cannot be defended by any fair-minded person in our society.
The CLA also said in its letter that the debate has focused exclusively on the interests of only one of the parties to the exclusion of the other. That is patently false. The proposed law states very clearly in a number of places that the law is to be fair to both parties. No one, including the Minister of Justice, anyone in this House of Commons or anyone in Canadian society wants to see a law which convicts innocent people. That is not what this law would do or I would not be here to support it or to vote for it.
I want to see a law which convicts guilty people. We have never had a sexual assault law which did that consistently. Conviction rates for sexual assault have always been lower than for other crimes.
April 8, 1992

Sexual assault is the most under-reported of all crimes for the reasons that have been mentioned. The former law which was written exclusively by men for men has not taken the victims of this crime into consideration. Some people actually think that women are prone to lying about sexual assault.
This really displays a silly and condescending attitude toward women to assume that they would lie about sexual assault any more than anyone would lie about any crime. Also the person more likely to lie about an assault is obviously the offender.
I believe that women are less likely to lie about sexual assault than any other crime. In no other crime would she be put on trial and her character and her honour ripped to shreds and offered up for the titillation of strangers the way sexual assault has been.
No one wants to go through that. Women who come out publicly as survivors of violence are often threatened, harassed and receive obscene phone calls. Sometimes they even receive death threats.
The Civil Liberties Association believes that the press should be free to exploit a woman's sexual history. It thinks that by the simple fact of not mentioning the woman's name in the media that her identity would be protected. Therefore it would not be at all embarrassing to her to have the details of sexual relationships that she has had to be broadcast across the nation, in the local papers and that this, in no way, would constitute a barrier to any woman coming forward.
The CLA should wake up. Stop thinking about this issue from only a male point of view, and try to see it from a balanced perspective. The CLA letter makes an erroneous analogy to the Donald Marshall case. In that case it was the accused who was unjustly treated. The accused was from a disadvantaged group.
In sexual assault cases it is the victim who is from a disadvantaged group and often from more than one group. The offender in sexual assault cases is, according to a study, likely to be white and Canadian-born. In sexual assault it is the survivors of this violence and the ones who do not survive who are unjustly treated.
I urge women and men who want a fair sexual assault law and who want to end violence against women to take action on this issue. I urge them to tell their member of
Government Orders
Parliament that they support this law and let the Minister of Justice know how important it is for her to take action on mandatory training for judges, lawyers and the RCMP on violence against women and on women's equality.
Tell your family, friends and neighbours that violence against women is always unacceptable. Challenge offensive attitudes about women and about sexual assault wherever they occur and whenever they occur.
We do not need judges or anyone else with power over our lives saying things like: "Rules are like women. They are meant to be violated". We must challenge media portrayals of women as bimbos whose only role in life is to please men. Women are humans with hopes, dreams and feelings. They have thoughts and whole and complete lives.
Let us tell the makers of films, advertising and TV programs that the bimbo era is over. Do not sit back and think that this law will necessarily be passed unamended. Ridiculous articles have already appeared in publications such as The Lawyers Weekly opposing this law.
Please, let us make our voices heard on this issue so that the parts of the bill will not be delayed at some powerful group's request. It is finally time for a fair sexual assault law and one that incorporates the rights of the accused and the rights of victims.
The New Democratic Party will co-operate in every way to ensure that this bill is passed quickly so that the women who are being raped every day in Canada will have this protection under the law.
The vision of a world in which women, children and men are safe from violence will not be realized within my lifetime but I dream of a world in which all women and men live together in harmony, understanding and respect. By supporting this bill I feel that we are taking a step forward toward that world. For my grandchildren, my grandsons and my granddaughters, I urge all members of this House to join with me and the New Democratic Party in strong support of this bill.
I want to add my congratulations to the minister for bringing this bill forward quickly, after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the rape shield law that we had in place and for moving in consultation with a number of organizations and women's groups across the country in presenting this bill to the House of Commons.

April 8, 1992
Government Orders


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a great pleasure as the Minister responsible for the Status of Women to join in this debate and to enthusiastically support Bill C-49.
It is a very important day in this Parliament and it is a very important day in this country, particularly for women, to be debating this issue before us.
My hon. colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby was talking about the old sexual assault laws and how they were written at a time when it was predominantly men in this Chamber. The laws were written by men, reflecting a male perspective on the law. Fortunately much of that has changed.
We now have women holding responsible positions, such as my colleague the Minister of Justice, the first woman to hold that position, and myself as Minister responsible for the Status of Women and women throughout this Chamber who now can play a role to effect not only legislation but have the positive effect that I feel this will have on women's lives in Canada.
I would like to add my congratulations, not only to the Minister of Justice but to members of the opposition, men and women, who have supported this bill, and to the many organizations that were consulted in the development of this bill for the input and the thoughtful approach that they have taken to it.
I can recall some months ago when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the rape shield law. It really was a surprise. Many of us working in this field had thought that it would not happen.
The women who worked in women's organizations were quite thunderstruck when that decision came down. There was a great sense of: "My heavens, what are we going to do now?" This was really going to be a very bad situation in Canada, if women would not have some protection about having to reveal past sexual activity or what is considered to be very private information about their background, and what could possibly be the relevance of that in certainly the majority of cases? I know in my meetings with women's groups and women's organizations there was a lot of anguish.
As other colleagues have said in this House, the issue of sexual assault is one that is unfortunately much more widespread than most people have recognized. The facts are coming out slowly, but even the statistics that we have now do not reflect the reality of what is going on in terms of so many women in this country who have been victimized.
In 1989 we had 12,970 cases reported, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. It is so difficult to really get a handle on it because it is primarily through anecdotal evidence, but I am sure all members of the House, and particularly women members who work with women across the country, have heard so many of the stories themselves. I know that I have.
In talking with women, and particularly young women, they feel almost a sense of resignation, a sense of what would be the point of reporting it, because all that would happen is that they would be dragged through a court, they would have information brought out about their background, they would feel as though they were on trial yourself.
How could they possibly put forward evidence that would hold up in a situation like that, and they would bring disgrace on not only themselves but their family and friends. I have heard this so often from so many young women. They feel really caught. They have often said that the only thing they can do is identify him among their friends. They know that guy, the guy in their class at school who behaves like this and really pushes women into sexual activity they do not want to be pushed into but they feel they do not have any way of dealing with it.
One of the most important parts of this legislation will be the message it will send to society, to men and women alike about the appropriate nature for sexual activity, the response that is going to be required of both parties, the clear definition of consent.
In many ways, at the time when the Supreme Court decision came out there was this feeling that this was a terrible time, but so often there is a silver lining in every cloud. I feel that this legislation is much better, much stronger and will be much more supportive of the reality of women's lives.
April 8, 1992

It is not only by being able to enunciate quite clearly the circumstances and the grounds when information about a woman's past sexual history may be relevant. I would expect it would be a very few times, but there may be times, as the Supreme Court has indicated, where there may be relevance and ensuring that can only be done in the most appropriate circumstances and that the discretion is provided by the judge.
This legislation then goes on to address another very fundamental concern which women have been talking about for some time but which had not been addressed in the previous legislation dealing with sexual assault, that is the definition of consent.
I wrote to the Minister of Justice and had discussions with her on this issue of consent. At that time it was not anticipated that this whole area of legislation might be opened up, but since it was being opened up it could be addressed.
The Minister of Justice has met with women's groups, heard their voices and has come forward with an approach respecting consent that very clearly changes the whole concept, very clearly sets out the parameters that there must be explicit consent.
We are talking primarily about men as was evidenced in 99 per cent of the cases. They can no longer say: "Well I thought she consented. She smiled and she said no. But she really did not mean it. We all know what that means". I am not joking. I hear this often. Or they say: "Well, my friends told me she was really easy and just give her a few drinks and that would be all that would be necessary".
The saddest things I have ever heard in working with disabled women are their stories about being sexually assaulted, sometimes by their own caregivers. It seems so astonishing to think that could happen, but it does happen. Depending on the degree of disability, they either cannot communicate or cannot physically take action to deal with that. They have felt so vulnerable and their world then becomes so narrow, so closed.
The other thing that is important to recognize as we discuss this issue of sexual assault is how it impacts on women's lives. I read something recently that said: "Yes, the physical wounds of rape are mended, but the psychological wounds in many cases are never mended".
Government Orders
Again, I know we can all speak from experience of women who have been through rape and other forms of sexual assault. It changes their lives in very dramatic ways. It takes away their sense of trust. It often confines them. In many cases, women deny it and find it very difficult to get on with their lives.
The recent report of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women Who is Listening, talked about young women. The statistics that were put forward in that report were quite shocking, about the number of young women who had been victims of sexual assault, some 18 per cent under the age of 15, 16 or 17 year olds and relating that to their sense of self-esteem and seeing the correlation and, indeed, seeing ever more dramatically that where young women had not reported the assault their self-esteem, their own sense of themselves, was even lower.
It is very important, if a woman is assaulted that she is able to report it and get the appropriate redress. She should have a sense of confidence in her community, in society and in the law that it is going to address the issue seriously. That is what this legislation does because it so very clearly sets out societal values around this issue. It will empower women to take control, in many ways, of their lives. It will have a very beneficial effect on men too.
I recall when the minister introduced the legislation and there were cartoons which had people having to sign documents before they engaged in sexual activity. That of course is not what we are talking about. That is carrying it to absolutely stupid extremes.
What I hope this legislation does is open up the dialogue between men and women so that they can frankly discuss their feelings for each other before they may engage in sexual activity and that young men are going to recognize that there is a very changed environment in which they live.
In the advisory council report there were some other, I found, very distressing statistics in the survey they had done with both young men and young women. The priorities of young men, and again we are talking about 15, 16 and 17 year olds, still relate to sexual activities. There were comments like: "I want to have sex before I am 16". A lot of their lives seem to revolve around that and that was what was important to them.

April 8, 1992
Government Orders
It was not a meaningful relationship with young women. It was just sort of physical sex without thinking about the implications of that with a partner. Obviously we have to address those issues. We know that people have hormones when they grow up, but how do they direct those kinds of virtues in fair and productive relationships between young men and women?
I am very pleased that the legislation is receiving support from all parties today. This really shows some tremendous advances for women, but also I think in terms of the whole legislative process.
I hope the bill will go to committee and have the appropriate in depth study that all legislation requires, but will be passed quickly so that we will have this law in place and then be able to work toward ensuring that it is implemented.
This legislation is but one step in the journey that we are all engaged in, in moving toward women's equality. Women's equality will not be achieved as long as so many women in our country and around the world live with the fear of violence, the reality of violence and, in many cases, that violence being in the form of sexual assaults.
There is much work that still needs to be done. Certainly my focus, as I address these issues, is ensuring we have the laws in place, ensuring we have the proper enforcement of those laws and the understanding of all the players that are involved: the prosecutors, the judges, the lawyers, the social workers and the court system.
My colleague, the Minister of Justice, is working very assiduously in that direction to provide that support. Beyond that, we then look at the whole area of education and prevention. How do we work with young people?
When we read the recent statistics on violent crime we see the incidents of sexual assaults as being a dominant form of violent crime among young people. This is an area that has to be addressed. How do you get at that? Through our educational facilities, through our schools, through organizations in the community and through the media.
I think all of us who have worked in this field have some very deep concerns about the kinds of messages which are constantly conveyed through the media with respect to violence, with respect to the roles of women and sexual relationships and how women are portrayed
so often in the media as being basically there for the pleasure of men. We have to work at changing some of those as well.
There is a lot of work to be done. Certainly the Canadian panel on Violence Against Women is one of the initiatives that this government has taken to address these issues. The broad issue is violence against women, but within that addressing violence within the home, public violence, sexual assault, abuse of women by those in trust, whether it is doctors or lawyers or in other situations. We are looking forward to their report and recommendations for what I hope will be a national strategy that can set out timetables, goals and actions that we, at the federal level, can be engaged in, along with our partners in provincial levels, in the community and the public at large.
We are not the only ones engaged in this. I met this morning with my colleague from Newfoundland. Newfoundland has just engaged in a new initiative relating to violence. The province of Ontario was announcing a program today dealing with violence and aboriginal women. The province of British Columbia just recently tabled the results of a very, very fine report that was done on violence against women. Many other jurisdictions are working on this and, as ministers together across the country, we are working as a result of the commitment we made two years ago at Lake Louise and reinforced last year in St. John's and will be working again at our meeting in Whitehorse coming up in the next couple of months.
Through the Family Violence Program of Health and Welfare there are a number of specific initiatives. There was one that was talked about in this morning's paper, a national study on date rape, an area in which again there has been a lot of discussion, but not a lot of objective study to really get at that issue. It really comes back to what I was talking about earlier, the problem of date rape where again so many young women are afraid to report it. They have been victimized in a dating situation, but often feel guilty themselves. They feel "maybe I did something or I wasn't able to take action". We are not only going to get a better understanding of that, but through this legislation we will be able to go out and talk to young men and women in their schools, in their colleges and say: "This is the law. Now, how are you going to work with us to make sure that people understand it and there is that dialogue and discussion and
April 8, 1992

support for this law so we do not have people breaking the law?"
It is an important time. Again, I want to congratulate the minister and all of those who have been involved. There is so much more work to be done, but for me it is heartening when I see these major steps moving forward with the support of colleagues throughout this House and I know throughout the country. We can in fact be agents of change here in Parliament, working together in a unified fashion, agents of change for the betterment of women throughout our society, but really for the betterment of Canadian society as a whole. I look forward to working with colleagues, not only in moving forward with this legislation, but with all the other initiatives that are going to be required to ensure that indeed women are free from the reality of violence and sexual assault throughout Canadian society.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate at second reading Bill C-49. It is not a lengthy bill, composed of only three sections, but the bill does address a matter of compelling interest and importance and even urgency in Canadian society.
It deals with an area where society, at least up until the last 10 or 20 years, has not had an inclination to discuss the implications of the changes in society as they relate to women and our criminal laws relating to sexual assault. I suppose 25 or 50 years ago there were a lot of men around here, not so many women, and there were a lot of things taken for granted, but not so anymore. At this time in our history, I hope we can continue the good work of discussing these issues publicly in the media, in Parliament, in our schools and elsewhere in society. As a consequence of the fact that many of these laws were put in place in Canada 75 or 100 years ago, there continues to exist in our Criminal Code a number of older laws with older attitudes as a foundation, and there are some considerable inequities.
Here today we have one of these inequities. Actually Parliament has tried to deal with it over the last 10 years, unsuccessfully as it turned out, as I will get to in my remarks.
Here we are dealing with the matter of sexual assault again and the law still needs updating. We have been using band-aids in the Criminal Code to update it for a
Government Orders
long time and I look forward to a comprehensive Criminal Code reform. The justice minister has made reference to it over the last while. I do not know whether this government will have an opportunity to get to it in this Parliament. I hope it will. If it does not, I can assure the House that a new government will.
A few years ago Parliament decided to amend the law and procedure governing the area of sexual assault. It did so to protect the interests of the complainant. In many public trials complainants were being humiliated and dragged through public trials when they themselves were the innocent victims. They were not the accused and that was an intolerable circumstance. Parliament attempted to respond.
In most of those trials, I guess all of them practically speaking, the accused were male. There might have been the odd one where that was not the case but for all intents and purposes the complainants who were humiliated were female.
Parliament introduced a new what is now section 276 and that was called the rape shield law. That law attempted to shield the complainant from that vicious and humiliating process of going forward publicly and providing evidence of a sexual assault in a trial of the accused.
However, recently, based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Seaboy-er and Gayne cases have struck down the section because in their view it prevented the accused from accessing and making a full and fair defence. Everyone understands that. However, it left this whole area wide open again. We were right back to where we started a few years ago.
Let us take a look at some of the context that we find ourselves in. My colleague from The Sydneys made note of it earlier, but the statistics on convictions for sexual assault are glaring when you look at the probability of a conviction here. Of 100 charges laid, only 63 ever got to court for trial. That meant that only 63 per cent of all of these sexual assault complaints ever got into a trial.
Of those same 100 cases, statistically there were only four convictions. That is pretty sad especially when you compare that statistic to the 67 per cent conviction success rate in relation to other crimes against the person.

April 8, 1992
Government Orders
We had and we do have a very serious problem in the judicial system relating to sexual assaults. That is the background we have. We are trying to make it fairer for the complainants who are usually female, not always. Sometimes they are children, sometimes they are male. We were trying to make it easier for the complainant to come forward.
There are probably several things wrong with the entire judicial package that is there. In this bill we are really just addressing one and that is the attempt to make it easier for the complainant. The bill attempts to make revisions procedurally and substantively to the elements of the law of sexual assault. The law will do three general things. It will put in place some guidelines for the admission of evidence relating to sexual history of the complainant. The guidelines will target the issue of relevance. It will become essential that any evidence that is admitted will be relevant to the issue at trial and relevant to the defence to the charge of sexual assault.
I note that is stated very directly in the preamble. I will speak about preambles shortly because it is a new process here, but the particular preamble that addresses relevance of the complainant's sexual history reads as follows:
- the Parliament of Canada believes that at trials of sexual offences, evidence of the complainant's sexual history is rarely relevant and that its admission should be subject to particular scrutiny, bearing in mind the inherently prejudicial character of such evidence.
If this bill proceeds, Parliament will have spoken clearly on the essential nature of the relevance on that issue.
The second thing the bill does, aside from creating guidelines for admission of evidence, is to create the procedure by which relevance and the other factors can be dealt with in a trial without prejudicing the complainant. Again, there is a preamble that states very clearly that one of the factors to be considered is the danger of prejudice to the interests of the complainant in this mini-trial procedure which will decide whether or not such evidence should be admitted.
The third thing the bill does is restructure and redefine the definition and concept of consent in the area of
sexual assault, because if there is consent, there is no sexual assault.
I would like to direct my attention here at second reading to four areas that I think deserve some attention. I do not want to pick the bill apart. I do not want to be even seen to be doing that. My party is supportive of this legislation. I think all of the parties in the House are. We want the best bill we can get. I do not want my remarks to be interpreted as not being supportive of the bill.
The four areas are as follows. We have to remember that this bill and the proposals here relate to sexual assault and sexual assault involves more than just the crime of rape. Sexual assault means all sexual assaults that run from near simple, if I can put it that way, sexual touching up to the more violent crimes of sexual assault and rape. There may be aspects of the law and procedure here that are going to have to be thought through for all of the various types of sexual assault, not just rape.
My colleague from the New Democratic Party placed very heavy emphasis and appropriately so on the offence of rape/sexual assault that is the most serious, that is the most heinous, that is justifiably the major target of the Criminal Code. There are other sexual assault offences. I feel we have to make sure that when we deal with this bill that we keep in mind that we are dealing with all types of sexual offences. I have a feeling, as I read the bill, as I listen to colleagues, that maybe not all of that has been thought through.
The second item I want to bring to the attention of the House, because I think it deserves further study at committee, is subsection (2)(e) of the bill. That is the section which deals with the definition restructuring of consent. It provides, and I am paraphrasing slightly here, but I think I do justice to the definitions, that "for the purposes of a sexual assault charge, no consent exists where the complainant by words or conduct revokes the consent".
That envisages a case where consent was given by both parties. Where one of them revokes the consent the law says that there was no consent. That means legally, during a period of sexual activity, whether or not intercourse has occurred and where the complainant revokes his or her consent, a condition of no consent is deemed to have existed. The result of that of course is
April 8, 1992

that the other party, male or female, has committed a sexual assault.
That was not the intent of the section. That needs further attention and it may well be possible to adjust the phrase and the definition in a way that will preclude an innocent party from being legally guilty or legally found to have committed a sexual assault.
I realize that men and women do not carry copies of the Criminal Code around with them all the time. When we cast a law we had better be sure precisely what conduct and under what circumstances we are proscribing the conduct.
The third point, which has been raised by others, has to do with the provisions in different parts of the bill dealing with intoxication.
In one part of the bill, we have the invalidation of the consent given by an intoxicated complainant. The bill says that it is not a consent if the complainant was intoxicated. You have the bill invalidating a consent and at the same time the same bill does not give recognition to the defence of mistaken belief by an intoxicated accused. There is almost a double standard here, and I think the committee needs time to think it through. There may be a justified double standard. There may actually be a very good reason to maintain those differences. At first blush, it appears to me to be inequitable to prejudice one party who is drunk and provide a benefit to the other party who is drunk irrespective of their gender.
The last item is an interesting one. It is a positive thing and I am sure the minister has gone through it carefully. It is the use of the preamble to assist the courts in interpreting laws passed by this Parliament.
Ever since the charter was passed almost exactly ten years ago, there has been some feeling of frustration in this Parliament and in legislatures around the country. It is the frustration that the courts may not be listening well or hearing what is happening in the legislatures and in the Parliament where our laws are passed. The courts are doing their very best to interpret all of our laws, both old and new, in light of the charter. That frustration is there.
The courts would like to be able to take account of the circumstances, the background and the intent of legislators, as legislators also have to deal with conflicting
Government Orders
rights and interests of all of our citizens. As we pass bills we have to do that.
This preamble approach may be very useful. I would like to refer to it as a pre-emptive charter-proofing, if I could use the term, so that the courts when they come to interpret our existing laws or the new laws that will have the preambles, they will know in advance precisely what our Parliament wanted to enact and why.
That may serve not only in the simple interpretation of the law but also serve in interpreting the different sections of the charter that permit a shuffling or juggling of the balance of rights between citizens.
I want to wrap up by indicating that I, along with my party, support the bill. I look forward to an effective committee study of this very important piece of legislation.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong the debate, because I think this is an important bill that should go to committee as soon as possible.
I have a few comments I would like to make. Based on my own experience after serving on numerous, perhaps too many, legislative committees I would like to flag some matters for the committee that will study this bill.
Before I do, I would like to pay tribute to the debate in this House. It is sometimes too bad that the debate is not covered. It is on television, of course, but the media tend not to cover the debate. It covers just Question Period in the House or something very special.
The level of the debate on the justice bills this week has really been, in my experience, in my 12 years in the House, on an exceptional level. I have seen it in other areas of the debate.
My colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands is here in the House. She is interested in the environment and external aid. I have noticed that when there have been environmental bills recently, there has been a very high level of debate on all sides of the House dealing with that and other modem issues.
I had a chance to listen to the debate today. I listened to the speakers, and I will just make a few comments. I noticed special messages that came through to me from the different speakers. The first was the Minister of Justice herself who gave an excellent speech on this bill.

April 8, 1992
Government Orders
When she said-I noted this-that women have little confidence in the Canadian justice system as it deals with sexual assault, I thought that was the place to start certainly. It almost seems we are starting to think that is an obvious statement. It needs to be made again and again, and it is really a very, very disturbing statement when you consider how important the matter of sexual assault is.
That was amplified by the justice critic for the Liberal Party, the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. What I remember about his speech especially was his ability to literally put himself in a woman's shoes. As a man, he put himself in the position and explained that position to the House.
He told us just what it is like for a woman walking home at night, walking through a dark garage, walking down the street, being afraid. Men just do not have this reality in their lives. I thought he put that very well. By doing that he showed his compassion and his understanding of the issue in an excellent way.
His colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River who just spoke went through the various parts of the bill and that was useful to do. But the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, in putting himself in a woman's position and expounding on that added to this debate.
My colleague, the member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, the women's critic for the NDP spoke and made a very strong speech. Civil Liberties Association take note; criminal trial lawyers take note. She said that the status quo, that is, the present law, prosecutes the victims. The present law on sexual assault, we knew it before as rape, prosecutes all right, but it prosecutes the victims. Most victims, usually women, are in fact put on trial it seems more than the accused. That is a pretty strong statement and I think people are beginning to realize that.
The minister, my friend and colleague from Capila-no-Howe Sound, said that the bill sets out a set of societal values in the bill and that it empowers women to take control over their lives. As a matter of fact she said that the bill can be very positive and that we should look at it in a positive way in that it is attempting to change the environment in which men and women deal with each other.
I could also pick up that theme from the NDP member, our women's critic from New Westminster-
Burnaby, when she talked the same way about modem attitudes of men and women in the relationship between the sexes. I think if you put the bill into that context you can see why it has support in the House.
I will be honest and set forward my bias. I started my working life as a criminal lawyer. I said it the other day, perhaps I should not have, but my first immediate superior as a young lawyer was a Crown attorney in the city of Vancouver, a fellow named George Campbell who was a great lawyer. He also had two very distinguished daughters one of whom is the Minister of Justice in this House.
I was also a criminal defence counsel and I am tempted to get up and make a speech going into the details of this bill. Any good trial lawyer can go into the details of a bill and point out the difficulties here and there and so on.
I am not going to do that. I am going to approach it from a different point of view because I think this is the approach that members of the criminal defence bar, whom I hope will come before the committee and must come before the committee to deal with this, would take.
I am told that a Canada-wide survey indicates that 62 per cent of female sexual assault victims do not report assaults to the police. They did a study in Winnipeg where it was 87 per cent. Only 1 per cent of women report to police that they have been victims of an acquaintance rape, the most common type of sexual assault. I will come to that in a minute.
Various studies indicate the following reasons for not reporting incidents of sexual assault: 47 per cent of the women gave this reason, the belief that the police could do nothing about it. They said that they were concerned about the attitude of the police and the courts towards sexual assault. That is what the Minister of Justice was saying in her speech.
Fear of another assault by the attacker was the reason for 35 per cent.
Finally, the largest percentage, 64 per cent said it was fear and shame. Does that not tell us something about the inadequacies of the present state of the law when 64 per cent of the victims say that they are not reporting the assault on them because they themselves are fearful and shameful. And they are the victims not the alleged criminal.

*

April 8, 1992

Indeed, we seem to have a law in which we put the victims on trial, at least that is how the victims perceive it.
The member for New Westminster-Burnaby said an interesting thing. She said that this is not just an assault but it is a sexual assault. It is like someone taking part of your body and soul. It is hard for men to understand this in many ways. She gave an example or one of the other speakers gave an example. They did not mean to demean the assault by this example, but to amplify it.
I do not know how many members of this House have ever come home to find it has been broken into. That has happened to me about three times in Ottawa and I have lost some personal things. You feel as if you have been violated and this is only property. You feel dirty, violated. Somebody has been into your personal things and they are gone. This is only property. You can imagine what it must be like if it is your body. This is what victims of sexual assaults must feel. That is the way that we men can try to put ourselves into that position and look at it. That is the way we have to approach the bill.
I mentioned the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association. Brian Greenspan from Toronto, president of the Ontario Lawyers Association, was quoted in an article on January 17 of this year in The Lawyers Weekly. It is an article by Cristin Schmitz who writes on these matters. She quoted Mr. Greenspan as saying: quote:
I think there is a lot of behaviour here that all of a sudden is being criminalized (and) it's a significant departure from some basic principles of criminal law-I think the fundamental problems lie in the redefinition of consent and the onus on the parties to sexual contact to confirm consent, creating I think an unreasonable burden on a person who wants to engage in voluntary sexual conduct to satisfy themselves of these standards.
This will be part of the position of the criminal defence bar. After all, its job is to make sure that people accused of a crime keep the basic principles we have in our system, that is the right to a fair trial, the right to the presumption of innocence, and the right to make full answer in defence. I personally, strongly and fundamentally believe that we have to fight to keep those principles.
What I am saying to Mr. Greenspan-and I say it because I am coming from the same place he comes
Government Orders
from, that is the criminal defence bar-is that let us have a look at the big problem first and then let us deal with the details to get a fair bill.
I wanted to continue the thrust of my point by quoting from some material printed by the Ontario Women's Directorate. It is called "Sexual assault, dispelling the myths".
True or false: Sexual assaults are most often committed by strangers. False. It is estimated that the majority of women, 68 per cent to 83 per cent, are sexually assaulted by men they know.
True or false: The best way for a woman to protect herself from a sexual assault is to avoid being alone at night in dark, deserted places such as an alley or a parking lot. False. Most sexual assaults occur in a private home. The largest percentage of these occur in the victims home. The next most common location is someone's car.
True or false: Men are the victims of sexual assault as often as women and children. False. It is estimated that 27 per cent or one in four are raped or sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. Of these offences 99 per cent are committed by men. The number of men who have been sexually assaulted is lower, roughly estimated at one in seven, which is an unacceptable figure. These assaults largely occurred to males under the age of 13 while women are sexually assaulted at any age. In approximately 95 per cent of the cases of sexual assault of men the offender is male. Regardless of the differences or rates of risk the effects of sexual assault of female and male adults and children are extremely serious and could be equally damaging.
True or false: Men who sexually assault women are either mentally ill or sexually starved. False. Sexual assault is a crime of power, control and violence. Men who assault are not sick, mentally ill or sexually starved. Studies and research on the psychological profiles of rape have overwhelmingly revealed that they are ordinary, normal, average men. We had better have a bit different definition of normal.
True or false: Only young and attractive women are sexually assaulted. False.
True or false: Women provoke sexual assault; they ask for it. False.

April 8, 1992
Government Orders
True or False: Even though a woman says no, she secretly enjoys being forced to have sex. False. When a woman says no, some men do not listen; they think she really means maybe or yes. Some men even believe that the woman secretly wanted or deserved to be raped. This is not true. No means no, whatever the situation.
I could go on, but what I am showing here is that there is a pattern. We are not talking about crazies. We are talking about everyday ordinary people. I say to the defence bar when it comes before the committee to focus on that. We are speaking about ordinary people who have not been made criminals before but who are criminals if they are committing sexual assaults. Society is now saying that it is going to change things. That is what is happening and that is what the modem law is going to be. That is why this bill is so important and that is why it reflects a change in attitudes.
I want to say something about the Civil Liberties Association. I know it has already been spoken to. I have a high regard, as the House knows, for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I have fought all my life-all my legal life and parliamentary life-for civil liberties. I am personally interested in what it has to say. I hope it will come to the committee. I have read its brief. Some parts I disagree with. I am especially interested in the part that was debated in the House today about the part of the bill that forbids reporting of the trial within a trial, where the judge determines whether to look at the past sexual history of the woman.
I would prefer that we did not have to look at the past sexual history of the woman at all. It is totally irrelevant and should not be there. But the Supreme Court has said that it is still relevant and we have to live with that. That is what this bill is attempting to define and deal with.
There is some question about whether that should be reported. I have always felt that we should err on the side of the freedom of the press. That is my own particular feeling. I am a civil libertarian. I would want to hear them on this and I want to hear the government as to why it should not be. I would like to hear that in the committee and identify that issue in the committee.
Let us turn to some other issues we might consider. The preamble: As the member for Cape Breton-The
Sydneys said, why do we have a preamble? We do not normally have a preamble in criminal law. Maybe we need a preamble here to set out the new societal attitudes. It is a very interesting development. It will be interesting to hear the evidence in committee on that.
The definitions on sexual assault: Everyone has pointed out that it is largely women. It is defined in the bill as women, in the preamble and in other places. I would point out that gay men have also been victims of assault disproportionately. The committee may want to look at whether it wants to keep the definition just strictly as women.
Consent: We have to look at the issue of intoxication, whether you are drunk, whether you can consent, and so on. That is one of the most difficult issues. I have prosecuted cases, defended cases, and let me say that in criminal law the issue of responsibility or lack of responsibility if you are drunk, intoxicated or drugged is really a difficult issue. That has to be looked at by the committee very carefully.
If a woman says she does not consent, she does not consent. It says this in the bill. Is it such a big step to say that? It seems to me that would be obvious. It makes a lot of sense, but I guess it still needs to be spelled out and it will be in this bill. What about the problem of being impaired and then consenting? That still has to be looked at.
I mentioned the matter of sexual history. I mentioned the matter of media broadcasting. I have covered those. One speaker said: "Let's get a balance". That is the challenge of the committee on this bill. The previous law, as a speaker said, was written by men for men. We do not want a law that is written by women for men, or even if people think it is written by women for men. We want a law that is written by women and men for men and women. We want a balance. We want it to reflect modem societal attitudes. We want to tackle this problem of violence against women. That is why all the parties in this House have agreed to this bill.
I will sit down, shut up, and let the bill go on to committee.
April 8, 1992


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, let me assure you that it is a comment and that I in no way want to create controversy.
The member for Port Moody-Coquitlam lauded my colleague from Nova Scotia, the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, on his insight into this situation. I want to tell him that I think we all benefit from the kind of support the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys has from his spouse. She has been very active in legal circles in Nova Scotia for a long period of time, serving Nova Scotia Legal Aid. I am sure part of his insight can be attributed to her great efforts and the great efforts of a great many women lawyers in Nova Scotia and across the country who have finally focused our attention on this subject.
This is one of the rare occasions when we can all look at the problem and try to find a sensible solution. The member for Port Moody-Coquitlam said we have to balance rights. We have that obligation to balance rights between all Canadians. An imbalance of rights has developed over the years in my opinion in the situation of sexual assault on women.
We have a court system that has been ruled for decades by male persons bringing all the prejudices and discriminations of the male persona to that and we have not taken into account the difficulties that women face in this situation.
I have experienced it as the member has experienced it. I have to admit that I have acted on behalf of defendants charged with various kinds of sexual assault and I pray to the very discriminating prejudice that exists within our court system. We have to right that. I am amazed that the Supreme Court of Canada showed such lack of insight in ruling out the existing law. It is our duty to come up with a law in my opinion-and I say this to all members-that goes as far as it possibly can in protecting women from sexual assault. I do not know if this law does that, but I think our goal should be to provide as much protection for victims of sexual assault as we can possibly do given the laws as determined by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I just want to say one more thing and perhaps the member will comment on it. We have parades across Canada by women who had the theme "Ihke Back the
Government Orders
Night". They made the point very strongly that no means no. I do not find-maybe because I am getting old-any difficulty with that dictate: no means no. The male population in relation to the female population has to understand that. We have to make them understand that. If we have to enact laws to force that point then that is what we should do.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There is not much I can say. The member has made his comment and suggested that the member for Cape Breton perhaps learn from his spouse. I would hope he also got it through his own head too, his own thinking.
We men do have to listen more and open our ears to what women are saying. They are telling us strongly that they want a change in the existing situation. We cannot just wish it to happen or even enact it completely as minister responsible for women's issues in the government said. We are going to need education and so on to get a change in attitude. I hope and trust that is going to happen with the younger generation who I hope and am confident will have different attitudes.
There is a tremendous movement against violence in Canada. Canadians do not want to see a violent society. There is a movement also toward equality in Canada. There is a movement toward having some of the old Canadian values back from when Canada was a peaceful country. I agree with the member that we have to have a strong law and I would say that we have to go far.
I will say we also have to consider-and that is what the Supreme Court was doing, I gather-the rights of people who are accused before our courts because it has to be a fair law as well.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand in the House to talk about this particular bill and to congratulate the minister on bringing forward this legislation. In fact when the Supreme Court struck down what was called the rape shield law in its decision, I was one who said that it was necessary to bring legislation forward. It was not a situation which could remain within the common law, even though the Supreme Court had set out certain criteria and standards which had to be met before previous history could be utilized in court. I felt it was important that this place make a statement in this particular area and come forward with the criteria.

April 8, 1992
Government Orders
I was pleased to see the legislation. Of course we have to wait until the committee has a chance to consider it, but it seems on its face to have the right balance, to utilize the charter as it applies here, but also to utilize some protection for the victim.
The method that is used, which is not unique, but one that is not used that often, is a preamble. I think that is going to send the right message to the courts and to the systems particularly. If I can just read one part of the preamble, I think it drives home poignantly the point. It states:
AND WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada believes that at trials of sexual offences, evidence of the complainant's sexual history is rarely relevant and that its admission should be subject to particular scrutiny, bearing in mind the inherently prejudicial character of such evidence;
I think that sets the tone for this legislation and what we are trying to accomplish in this place. There is no question that an accused does have rights under the charter and that those have to be protected. At the same time, we have to go far enough to ensure that we are not victimizing the victims in these circumstances.
The bill provides three main elements. It provides for strict guidelines in determining admissibility of past sexual history. It clearly outlines the procedures that are to be followed and it defines a notion of consent.
All who have spoken today have said that no means no. It seems that a lot of people were functioning under the mistaken belief that no means something other than no and now we have a clear statement in the legislation that no does mean no. We are all pleased to see that come forward.
These defences of intoxication and the argument that what was said was not really meant, all of those sorts of things are now going by the by. In my view and in my party's view this is progress. This is moving the state of affairs between men and women one step closer to what they should be. There is still a long way to go but this is a positive start in that particular area.
I do have some concerns, and I want to point them out. I guess being a new member of Parliament, and only here for my first term, it is surprising when you look at legislation and you say it really looks to be pretty good and then once you get to committee and hear the different points of view and the different arguments from all sides, you start to think that well maybe you were a little stupid and did not really understand what was taking place and really missed some of the obvious holes in legislation. I am looking forward to this bill
coming to committee so that we can see exactly what is going on.
I do want to point out that there are some areas in the legislation that do cause me concern. One in particular is with respect to section 276(3)(h). It states:
(h) any other factor that the judge, provincial court judge or justice
considers relevant.
This is dealing with the areas of the criteria that the court should consider when deciding whether to admit evidence of previous history or not. What this can do, which is my worry and we are going to have to analyse it very closely, is put a discretion in the court and that discretion could be applied unequally across the country. It can create a major problem as to what a judge in, say, Newfoundland considers acceptable as to admissions on previous history, compared to what a judge in Victoria, B.C. may say.
We have to look at this paragraph to ensure that there are the protections, so that there is equality before the law throughout all of Canada and that there is not too large a discretion as to the admission of this type of evidence. Then I go back to what the preamble says which clearly states that this type of evidence is unusual and really is not relevant in most cases. While the Supreme Court has said that in some cases it can be introduced, I agree with my colleague in the NDP in wondering why it should be introduced at all. We cannot get around what the Supreme Court has said and so we will have to deal with it.
We have to ensure as well that the evidence, to a degree, is private. I know there are two sides to that coin. We have all seen the publicized trials in the United States; the Senate hearings in the Thomas case and also in the Kennedy case in Florida. We can see how publicity damages everyone and so I wonder where we can strike the balance in that regard. We will have to hear evidence with respect to this and bring it forward from the committee after we have had a chance to really study it in very close detail.
There is something else that we have to look at. It is a terrible anomaly that previous history of sexual conduct is still going to be introduced after a hearing, but the evidence of previous convictions of a rapist is not. One wonders why that inconsistency is there, particularly when you hear of cases like the Takahashi case out west in which there was not evidence, but an indication that perhaps 100 or 125 rapes had occurred even though he was only charged and convicted on four instances. None of those other cases could be introduced at trial. The accused is being well protected in that regard, but I am
April 8, 1992

not sure whether the victims are receiving the same type of protection.
As I say, we have to be careful not to victimize the victim. I do not think that became any more clear to me than on the justice and solicitor general's committee. I was before the victims of the Takahashi rape situation and at that time, the witnesses were testifying that they have all kinds of problems. They have the problems of what happens right at the instance because the first people they deal with are the police and the first thing they do is rush them off to the hospital and put them through further indignities.
One of the witnesses even went further to testify that after she had been raped in her own home, months afterward the police just dropped a bag off with the evidence of the soiled sheets without any consideration for the victim.
All of these systems seem to be set up to victimize the victim and that is what we have to worry about. I think that we have to take that extra precaution to make sure that we do not do that.
It seems to me, and it does not really fall within the jurisdiction of the Criminal Code, but when a rape case has occurred, it is absolutely essential that with the police should go some victim's assistance so that the victim is accommodated right from the outset.
As well, we have to spend some time with our court system, with the judges, and make them more aware of exactly what is going on so that there is assistance to the victim all the way through the process because we have seen it time and time again that we are going to victimize the victim if we do not.
The introduction of previous sexual history is, in my view, a victimization of the victim because of what earthly relevance does it have to the incident that would be before the courts?
It will be interesting to hear the different witnesses who come before the committee and get their balanced view. I know the civil libertarians are very concerned about this type of legislation as are a number of members of the bar concerned that there is some prejudice to the accused. But I do not think it hurts at all to exclude that type of evidence and that is why I am pleased to see this bill before us.
Government Orders
These are difficult issues. What we are seeing here today is the House of Commons functioning together and trying to come up with a just piece of legislation. The next process is for people outside this place to have then-input into the decision. The results, I hope, will be good legislation for women and good legislation for Canadians.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill.
It is a bill about power because rape is always about power. More importantly it is about all the reasons why our laws tend to emphasize the powerlessness of women in society generally, and traditionally and historically before the courts as well.
I want to talk about the feeling of powerlessness that is every woman's from the time she becomes conscious of herself. I think it is vital to understanding why this bill is so important to us and why it is so important to a society that does not want decisions made on who is strongest and who is most powerful.
I realize it is extremely difficult for most men to understand what this means to women, but most men have grown up from little boys knowing that they will be big, they will be strong and they will have important jobs.
Most girls have grown up from the time they were less than two knowing that they would always be smaller and always be weaker and never be as important and never quite count as much. Neither would they have money of their own. They would always clean up after everybody else and they would always be good little girls, because ii you did not, daddy might get cross. Mommy might even get cross if you were not good and daddy did not like it.
This is why as we grow into women, every day and every minute of our lives is regulated by the fact that we are women, that we are smaller and that we are weaker. Every one of us knows the way in which we plan every day, where we can go, at what time of the day, alone or with somebody.
I doubt there is a man in the House who approaches his car at night in a parking lot with the fear that a woman does every day. It is important for all of us who have to deal with this bill here in the House and in committee to understand that that is why this is so important to women. That is why we need to find measures to equalize our treatment before the courts.

April 8, 1992
Government Orders
This feeling of being powerless, of always having to be just a little bit afraid, is partly what leads to the kind of violence that we have become so much more aware of only very recently. It is what leads to the exploitation of women in a number of different ways around the world.
It is what leads to the exploitation and abuse of power over women as a universal phenomenon. It is why women tend not to report crimes against themselves as easily or as readily. They know that that immediately places them in a situation where again they are powerless, others are in control and they can be hurt more. The question comes up of whether a woman's past behaviour has anything to do with the rights of the accused in court. Let me put the question this way: If I have given money to friends in the past, does that give them the right to walk into my home and steal money from me? If somebody uses their superior force to say to me "Give me $50" and I give it out of fear, does that mean I gave it willingly? No, it does not. If I happen to be the victim of a robbery while wearing an expensive suit and $600 shoes and therefore advertising the fact that I was wealthy and open to being robbed, does that excuse the person who robs me? Of course not.
Only women, in the case of sexual violence against them, come up against these arguments and have to, as the victim in a crime, defend against what they did to cause it, how they gave some man an excuse to violate them. It is that simple. That is what we are trying to deal with in this bill.
The accused is very carefully protected from having his history used in court to in any way suggest whether he is or is not likely to have committed this crime. Why does a woman, the innocent victim of a crime potentially, have to be subject to evidence that she may or may not have or is likely to have or is not likely to have caused this person to commit a crime against her, a crime so violent, so intrusive that the results are with her the rest of her life? I know that is a concept difficult for men to understand. If your car is smashed, what kind of anger do you feel? If you walk into your house and your television has been taken or your silver has been taken, what kind of anger
do you feel? You can replace a television set and you can buy a new car, but you cannot buy a new self. Rape forever changes who you are, how you feel about yourself and how you feel about the world.
This bill is so important because it is sort of the ultimate expression of women's powerlessness in society. There has just been a report out on why there are not women in engineering. I happen to be married to an engineer, I have a son-in-law who is an engineer and I have a son who is an engineer, so I know a fair bit about engineers and I know a fair bit about engineering faculties at universities. There is a whole culture there that is ugly and offensive to the very nature of women. It is so totally male macho culture that no woman is comfortable in it. There are things like the now-gone greased pole at Queens. Tell me what woman wants to be an engineer when part of your initiation process is to expose yourself to filth, and I mean that in the most vile terms, believe me.
Why are there not more women in politics? We will not have the kinds of laws that make it difficult for women to get justice when we have more women writing laws. That is not that I would write better laws than any of my male colleagues in this House. It is just that I bring a different perspective to it, a perspective I think is necessary to complete our humanity when we create laws in this House.
Bertha Wilson said it best when she talked about the difference between how men and women deal with laws, why the justice system is anathema to women. The whole idea of winning and losing that is fundamental to our justice system is a male concept. It is a concept that is promoted by those who are bigger and are more powerful. It is not a concept that women are comfortable with.
I am being very open and honest about my feelings because this bill is about feelings. It is about whether women feel that having been violated they can turn to the justice system that is supposed to be there to protect all of us and whether they can turn to that system and expect to be treated with dignity and as if they were the victims and not the accused. I suppose it is not a perfect bill, but I think it is a good starting point.
April 8, 1992

I congratulate and thank the Minister of Justice for acting so quickly in getting something to the House. I look forward to seeing if we can make it a little closer to perfect when we deal with it in committee.
I would just ask everybody in the House to bear in mind that we tend to put so much more importance in our legal system on property than we do on people. It does seem to me that we get more angry and react more violently if our property is harmed or taken from us than we do if another person is harmed.
I ask us to think about that in all the laws we make and as we look at the reports in the media in court cases. Look carefully at where the heavy sentences go. It is for crimes against property, not for crimes against little children or women.
I hope that will be taken into consideration as we go through this bill in committee. It should be as tough as it can possibly be. It should do as much as it can possibly do to overcome the automatic powerlessness that women feel. That is the only way we will start eradicating this particular crime against women and, hopefully, eventually violence against women in its entirety.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I believe that concludes the debate, if I am not mistaken.
I just want to take the opportunity presented by questions and comments to say to all colleagues in this House who participated in this debate how grateful I am for their contributions. It has been an enormously valuable discussion. I think each individual has contributed; my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys and my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam, who are the justice critics for their party, my colleague the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, the member for New Westminister-Burnaby, the member for Ottawa West and several other members of the Liberal party who spoke.
I just want to say that I believe this is an historic debate. The record of this debate is something people will look back on years from now. It is the first time we have tried to create legislation that really reflects the reality of life as it is lived by women in a very explicit way and where, on all sides of the House, we have had people who recognize that, supported it, were comfortable with that. I believe that is a quantum leap for women. We
Government Orders
have much to do in terms of making progress. I know there is devotion to that goal on all sides of the House. I have seen this in the participation in programs on violence against women and in my colleague's blue ribbon panel on violence against women. There has been strong support for this all along.
I want simply to say that for me, as the minister, who had the opportunity to bring this bill forward it has been a moving and very touching experience and a very reassuring experience to hear the quality of this debate and to hear the candour and openness and the level of understanding that has characterized all of my colleagues, men and women, on this subject and I am very grateful for it.
This is a day that I for one will not forget for a long time. Thank you very much. I look forward very much to the work of the committee. I would be remiss if I did not say how much, as minister, I appreciate the work that members do in dealing with the nuts and bolts of legislation. I think members of the public often do not understand the kind of work that their members of Parliament do. It is not necessarily very glamorous, it does not necessarily get the headlines, but it is absolutely fundamental to making the kinds of changes that Canadians expect us to make.
I want to say in advance, thank you to all whom I know will participate in this and to express my respect and appreciation for you, and thank you for your support for the legislation.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I just want to echo what the minister has said and to congratulate the member for Ottawa West on her speech today. I found it very important.
I just cannot stress too much what is important in this bill and the importance that the women in Canadian society attach to this legislation. I would hope that we will get, as I have said earlier, the opportunity to fully discuss this bill, as the member for Ottawa West has said, to change any flaws that may be there and to make it a better bill. I thank the minister for bringing it forward. I ask the member for Ottawa West if she feels that there is anything that she knows of that can be improved in this legislation, now that it is ready to go to committee.

April 8, 1992
Government Orders


Marlene Catterall: I would just comment at this point, Mr. Speaker, to say I will certainly be watching the committee debates very carefully and contributing in whatever way I can.
What is important to me is that things have not changed that much in my lifetime. For my daughters it is not even that much different, but I certainly hope for my granddaughters that they will at least be able to see a time when women will live without the kind of fear that many women do now. I look forward to the committee debate and I look forward to making some specific comments on the bill and how we can strengthen it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would like to respond to the hon. member's speech, which was an excellent one, and also to what the Minister of Justice has just said.
I used to represent the riding of Vancouver-Kings-way. It was represented at one time before me by Grace Maclnnis. In 1968 she was the only woman in the House of Commons. She told me a little bit about what it was like being in the House, and what it was like for her in those days. This House has changed a lot. Canada has changed a lot in that period clearly. I am sure if Mrs. Maclnnis were alive today, she would applaud what the House has done today.
I am speaking on behalf of the member for New Westminister-Burnaby, myself and all the members of my party. We are prepared to now let the bill go through and go to committee and get a thorough and quick airing in committee.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would like also to make some comments on this historic day. As a woman who has had personal experience with this issue as well as the mother of a teenage daughter, I think that things have changed.
I know that my daughter's school has a program on date rape. No such program existed when I was in high school. I think that is a step forward. At least we are now talking about this issue. It is out in the public forum for debate.
I also will be following the committee's deliberations with great interest.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague for Ottawa West on what was truly beyond an indication of her feelings on the bill. It was heartfelt. May I take a moment? It is an important issue to all of us partially due to the fact that in my particular case I have two daughters who are six and eight. Nothing would make me feel more secure in myself and for my daughters if some short time down the road they will be able to avail themselves of their very rights.
What I would like to do is ask the hon. member for Ottawa West if she could respond to this particular scenario which we have seen over the years where few women have come forward to bring their assailants to court.
In this particular bill I wonder if the member for Ottawa West could explain or tell this House and the constituents in our ridings if this bill is going to avail women a greater opportunity to do what must be done.


Marlene Catterall: That is a difficult question to answer. I think women have to grow to have confidence in the system.
Let me tell you something I did not refer to in my speech but I think it is relevant as to whether women come forward or whether they feel there is a caring, comforting society to look after them when they have been injured rather than one that is going to blame and further punish them.
I want to tell you how I feel when a comment is made in a totally female word that is clearly pejorative, for instance, of a member of this House. It is a reminder of every time you have been on a bus as a little girl and some man has rubbed up a little close to you. It is a reminder of every time you have been grabbed in a sexual way when you were powerless to resist. It makes your stomach turn. That is what one word can do to a woman when it is directed at her as a woman.
We all know what I am talking about. When I feel that way on the basis of one word, how difficult it is to go forward to a police officer and say: "I've been raped. This is what happened to me". Imagine. That is why 96 per cent of rapes never come to trial.
April 8, 1992


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand here today and speak to the second reading of Bill C-49.
This bill was introduced in response to the August 1991 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to strike down section 276 of the Criminal Code commonly known as the rape shield provision. As a result of that decision, aspects of the complainant's sexual history will no longer be excluded automatically from evidence in sexual assault trials and judges will be left to decide if such evidence is pertinent. The court decided this was necessary to ensure the accused's charter rights.
Although generally recognized as a theoretically sound legal decision, there was serious concern among women's groups, much of the legal community, and the Minister of Justice herself that the door would be opened again for questioning a female complainant about her sexual past. As a result, in December 1991 the Minister of Justice tabled Bill C-49.
Let me stop here and tell you a little tale of one rape case that I knew of. This happened 20 years ago.
She was a lady in her fifties. She was partially deaf and she had gone to her neighbour's for coffee. On her way home, which was maybe four houses away, a car stopped in one of the suburbs of my riding and asked her for directions. Or so she thought.
She walked up to the car. She was abducted. She was driven out into the bush, raped and left there.
There was no doubt, of course, that she had been raped. All I can tell you is the horror of what happened during the trial. This was just an ordinary housewife in her early fifties with no sexual past as such. She had been married and had five children.
At that time the questions of the lawyers defending the accused were such that, of course, this testimony was printed in the newspapers. They tried to leave the impression that because she had walked up to the car that somehow she had invited this rape.
It was an absolutely horrible thing to be a person in the community reading about this. I knew this woman and I knew that this was a totally false impression. I also knew that this lady had a hearing impairment.
Government Orders
All I can say is that it is such a very difficult time in anybody's life without having this kind of thing happening. This is even though, in this particular case, the accused were found guilty and were sentenced.
Subsequent to that, I guess, the laws were changed. Such evidence was no longer allowed and that kind of trial was no longer a problem. However, I will never forget that. I was a very young woman reading about that in the newspapers. It had affected me greatly.
What does Bill C-49 do? The proposed legislation has three main elements. It provides for strict guidelines in determining admissibility of past sexual history as evidence. It outlines clearly the procedure that must be followed in admitting such evidence. It defines the notion of consent to sexual activity.
Additionally, the bill contains a preamble which discusses the context and rationale for the legislation. It may also be aimed at providing justification from section 1 of the charter of rights for any consequential infringement of guaranteed legal rights.
The preamble acknowledges that Parliament is gravely concerned about the incidents of sexual violence and abuse in Canada. It recognizes the unique character of sexual assault. It wishes to encourage the reporting of incidents of sexual violence and believes that evidence of the complainant's sexual history is rarely relevant.
The Minister of Justice intends that this preamble will be used for guidance by trial judges and lawyers alike and especially to reinforce the fact that great discretion must be used by all parties when dealing with evidence relating to a complainant's sexual history.
An accused would have to make a written application to the court for a hearing to determine the admissibility of sexual conduct evidence. The prosecutor and the court clerk would have seven days to review the submission before any hearing to determine admissibility.
Such evidence would have to be of specific instances of sexual activity, be relevant to an issue to be proved at trial and have significant positive value not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice against the complainant.
There is a publication ban on all evidence contained in such a submission. Matters to be considered by the court in making a determination of admissibility include the right of the accused to make a full answer in defence, the

April 8, 1992
Government Orders
aim of increasing the reports of sexual assault, the potential of prejudice to the complainant's personal dignity and privacy, and the rights of all individuals to the full benefit and protection of the law.
These matters will be discussed and decided upon in a private hearing at which the complainant will not have to testify if she wishes not to.
Finally, the jury will be instructed that they are not to be prejudiced against the complainant after hearing the evidence. Arguably, the boldest aspect of the bill is its attempt to define consent. Women's groups and those who work in the field of sexual assault have long maintained that until the law deals with the issue of consent it would be inherently unfair to rape victims. After all, they argue, it is consent alone that determines if a rape has taken place.
Bill C-49 defines consent as the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in sexual activity. It also removes or limits the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.
The bill also invalidates consent obtained in the circumstances where agreement was expressed by someone other than the complainant, where the complainant was incapable of consenting by reason of intoxication or other conditions, or where the complainant engaged in the sexual act as a result of abuse of trust or authority by the defendant.
There would also not be consent where the complainant expressed by words or conduct a lack of agreement to engage in the activity or a revocation of agreement.
Bill C-49 removes the defence of mistaken belief in consent where that belief was based on the accused's self-induced intoxication or recklessness or wilful blindness. It also adds that all reasonable steps must be taken by the accused to ascertain consent.
The bill also places an evidentiary burden upon the accused's mistaken belief in consent.
The Liberal caucus has been supportive of the concept embodied in Bill C-49 since its tabling. We are anxious to see the bill in committee so we can examine the concerns of the major critics of the bill. One in particular
is the criminal defence bar which fears that their clients will have a difficult time building a strong case with the tightening of the "honest but mistaken belief" defence. And there is the new concept of securing consent and civil libertarians.
There has also been negative reaction to provisions that would invalidate the consent given by an intoxicated complainant but remove the defence of mistaken belief in consent from an intoxicated accused. We will work to examine this closely in committee to make sure it is just and will withstand future challenges.
Most commentators have been amenable to the new guidelines placed on admitting evidence of past sexual activity. There is more contention surrounding the idea of defining consent, however.
As mentioned earlier, women's groups have been supportive of the concept although guilty intent is usually necessary to support a criminal conviction. Many find the defence of mistaken belief and consent to be offensive in rape cases probably because it ignores the victim's feelings or behaviour during the commission of the alleged offence.
Before 1983, in the enactment of the original rape shield law, women themselves and their reputations, not the actions of the rapist, were most often on trial. Reports of sexual assault increased by over 127 per cent from 1982 before the rape shield law was put in place.
According to the federal government's own Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, for every rape which occurs once every 17 minutes in this country only one in 100 men is ever charged. The magnitude of the crime becomes even more apparent with the fact that one in every 10 men in prison are there for rape.
According to a recent study in Nova Scotia most rapists get sentenced for about two years and are back on the street in one year. For every 100 cases where women do bring charges, 63 never come to trial. For every 100 charged, only four are ever convicted and of these, three end up in jail.
Compare this with a 67 per cent conviction rate for all other crimes against the person.
April 8, 1992

This says one of two things. Either 96 per cent of all women who press sexual assault charges are lying or our justice system is not properly handling this horrendous crime. If we are to accept the latter-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe speeches were to be 10 minutes plus 5 minutes questions and comments. The hon. member for Malpeque. Do you want to finish? Go ahead and finish it.


Diane Marleau: Yes, please. If we are to accept the latter it is glaringly apparent that new legislation, especially that which takes a new sensitized approach to the issue, is urgently needed.
I am going to skip part of my speech so that I can give more time to my colleagues. All I can say is that we do need a new law against sexual assault which will deal with the reality of the crime and its life-long effects on women who find themselves victims.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the statistics that the hon. member has injected into the debate this afternoon. They are quite horrifying statistics, speaking as a woman, but I think they also demonstrate that the criminal justice system is not necessarily the only system that addresses this problem.
A lot of public education has to be done on this issue. The independent women's movement has made a large contribution to this. I know that the public school system is now starting to get involved as well because of the incidence of date rape in the high school population.
I invite the member to comment on these other than what some see as peripheral agencies that are also injecting their views into this debate.


Diane Marleau: I believe that awareness is perhaps the best method of educating people. I would agree that many groups out there have fostered a better understanding of what really happens in these cases. Not only women's groups but all levels of society can teach people that one has to take responsibility for one's own actions, be they male or female.
I have one daughter and two sons. In my own home I have tried to impress upon my children that one must always take responsibility for ones actions, that one can never blame it on somebody else or maybe I did not know. If you do not know, you should always find out.
Government Orders
The more education we have for our young people and the more public awareness of this problem then perhaps the more easily we can prevent it from occurring, at least in the numbers I have been quoting. They are horrendous statistics.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have spent many days of duty in this House from time to time. I must congratulate the Minister of Justice on her speech and her bill and must congratulate the spokesmen for the Liberal Party and the NDP on the excellent discussion that has taken place on this very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I think you would agree that the openness of the discussion and the frankness of the views expressed here today are refreshing. If we are going to tackle many of the social problems this nation is faced with, we must be open about discussing them. We must discuss them openly with our young people and our own families. It is very important for parents to discuss these issues with their children so that everybody is fully aware of these situations in life.
I know that in the past history of Canada and the past history of society these issues have been so closed that they were never dared to be talked about in the home. You know what I mean, Mr. Speaker. Today the discussion in this House is symbolic of the openness of people in their discussions with young people. I think it is very healthy. I would like to commend all those who have delivered excellent speeches this afternoon.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate today in debate on Bill C-49, the rape shield bill.
I feel this is a step in the right direction, but it is only a step. This law will only become involved when a woman actually reports a sexual assault. When we look at the statistics from the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, they tell us that only one in ten rapes are reported. That is very low, the 10 per cent that are reported.
There are certain provisions in Bill C-49 which I hope and I think will encourage more women to report cases of sexual assault. There is much that remains to be done to combat the serious problem of violence against women in general and sexual violence in particular. A lot of that responsibility lies not only with this legislation, this government or the courts, but with all of us. Only a

April 8, 1992
Government Orders
change in public attitudes will free women from the fear of violence, sexually and otherwise.
Sexual assault is one of the most common crimes in our society. According to various studies, a woman is raped in Canada every 17 minutes. One in four women are raped or sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. The figures are probably higher for immigrant, visible minority and working class women.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has told us that one in ten rapes are reported. Of those reported one in ten are charged. In four out of a hundred cases charged rapists are convicted. That is 4 per cent which is very low when we compare it to a 67 per cent conviction rate for all other crimes against the person, 4 per cent as compared to 67 per cent.
Clearly the emotional damage suffered by all women who are sexually assaulted is enormous. It ranges from suicide attempts to alcohol and drug abuse, to recurring nightmares.
Even the three out of four women who will escape that will never be raped, accordingly to statistics. They do not escape totally because the study tells us that one in two women are afraid to go out after dark on their own, in their own neighbourhoods, according to a 1990 Gallup poll. Many more consider the possibility of physical violence when deciding to go for a walk, to rent an apartment, to go shopping or whatever.
All these statistics and these figures may be dull, but they certainly point to a very shocking picture of sexual violence against women, women whose pain and fear are not dull but are very real indeed.
The picture of violence against women in Canadian society is a national sham, a national tragedy. It is something that we all have a moral duty to fight.
Bill C-49 that is before us today fills a gap left when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the 1983 rape shield law. That rape shield law said in effect that in a sexual assault trial evidence of a woman's sexual history was generally not admissible in court. It was considered irrelevant except in certain exceptions. However, the Supreme Court struck that law down. The court argued
that the right under the charter of the accused to mount a complete defence was violated.
Bill C-49 therefore has been very carefully worded to make it charter-proof. I also want to mention in connection with this bill the low conviction rate that I mentioned earlier. Four per cent of charged rapists are convicted, compared to a 67 per cent conviction rate for all other crimes against the person.
In this bill before us there are basically two main features. There is a new rape shield law that I just mentioned. The other is the first-ever definition of consent for sexual activity. The new rape shield law confirms that in court an alleged rapist can introduce evidence of the rape victim's sexual history in order to suggest that this activity made her more likely to have consented to have sex with him.
Now that mirrors the 1983 rape shield law. A woman will again be protected from facing the humiliation of having her sexual history used against her in open court to suggest she is lying or she asked to be raped. A new section says that any discussion of whether her sexual history can be introduced as evidence will take place before a judge behind closed doors. These changes will hopefully encourage more sexual assault victims to come forward and to lay charges.
Turning to the definition of consent, the bill defines consent as voluntary agreement to engage in the sexual activity in question. A woman who first said yes then later said no is not considered to have given her consent.
This tries to eliminate the grey area in which rapists in the past have hidden. A rapist would argue, for example, that he was too drunk to have known that the victim said no. A Montreal man last year in fact was acquitted in the rape of a 65-year old wheelchair bound woman on the grounds that he was too drunk to have intended to rape her. Or, he would argue that he just assumed she consented because the woman was too drunk to say no. Now a man must take responsibility for his actions by taking all reasonable steps to obtain her consent.
This is important legislation because by placing more responsibility on the man the bill will hopefully result in
April 8, 1992

fewer attacks on women and a higher conviction rate in cases which do occur.
I certainly look forward to this bill going to committee. In closing my remarks, I hope to have an opportunity to speak in more detail later at some point on this legislation. I want to commend the justice minister for bringing forth this legislation. I caution, however, that this is really only a small piece of a horrible over-all picture. The responsibility for changing that over-all picture rests with each and every one of us.
I look forward to this bill going to committee, to being examined, and to ensuring that there is an effective balance established between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-56, an act respecting the control of government expenditures, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance.
Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it was my understanding that, according to the standing rules, you could not immediately proceed from a report stage to third reading without unanimous consent. Am I wrong in that interpretation?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no amendment, therefore there is no reason why we cannot.
Government Orders


Iain Francis Angus: Am I wrong?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think you are.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak at third reading on Bill C-56, the spending control act.
No one in this House can be in any doubt about where the Canadian people stand on the subject of government spending. It is, after all, their money that government spends and they, understandably, can see no reason why governments should be any freer in spending their money than they are themselves.
Canadians are tired of endlessly rising government debt and the annual deficits that produce it. They want government to live within its means and they want the burden of government reduced. They want some assurance that essential public services will not be eroded by overspending on non-essentials.
They want assurance that there are limits to the taxes they will be expected to pay in the future. The spending control act responds to those wishes and provides those assurances. It imposes a ceiling on all government program spending four to five years from 1991-92 to 1995-96.
The ceiling for each of the five years is the spending projections set out in the February 1991 budget. The spending control act marks the first time any government in Canada has moved to impose legislated spending limits on itself. Combined with a variety of spending control mechanisms introduced as part of our expenditure control plan in 1990, the act makes spending controls more visible and easier to understand.
Under the act, the rules could hardly be more clear, with limited exceptions. If expenditures on any program turn out to be higher than projected, they will have to be offset by reductions elsewhere. The legislation rules out greater borrowing or higher taxes to pay for higher than projected spending.
The February 1992 budget was consistent with the spending control act. Future budgets will also have to be consistent with the act, or they may not be presented without, at the same time, legislation amending the spending control act. These provisions go a good deal further than comparable legislation to control spending in the United States, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act or the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

April 8, 1992
Government Orders
The spending control act thus takes its place as a centrepiece of the government's commitment to build a stronger, more resilient Canadian economy by controlling the deficit and the heavy cost of servicing the public debt.
This commitment has in turn been a central part of the government's economic agenda since it took office in 1984. In the 15 years up to and including 1984-85, spending on government programs grew at an average annual rate of 13.8 per cent or 6 per cent after taking into account inflation.
As a share of the Canadian economy, federal program spending rose from 15 per cent in 1969-70 to 19.6 per cent in 1984-85. That is higher than at any time since the Second World War.
Consider the turnaround we have achieved since then. Between 1984-85 and 1990-91 program spending increased by only 3.6 per cent per year, well below the rate of inflation of 4.5 per cent during this same span. We have in other words cut program spending in real terms. As a share of the economy, federal program spending is back down to 16 per cent, its lowest level in 20 years.
Mainly as a result of rigorous control of program spending, we have turned the government's operating deficit of $16.1 billion in 1984-85 into an operating surplus of $11.9 billion in 1990-91, a turnaround of $28 billion. More than two-thirds of this improvement in the operating balance comes not from higher taxes and other government revenues but from restraint in program spending.
Although we have made significant progress, we still have some distance to go. We are still paying the price for the uncontrolled deficits and build-ups in the public debt in the free-spending years before 1984-85. Although the net debt has more than doubled since 1984, all of the increase, and again I emphasize all of the increase, and more reflects compound interest on the $200 billion in debt this government inherited when it came to office.
As a result, we are still running a deficit. It is too high and every dollar of the deficit and more is accounted for by interest payments on the public debt. In other words, we are paying for excesses in the past that severely limit our room to manoeuvre today.
If we were not carrying an excessive burden of debt, these are dollars that could be used to stimulate economic recovery to fund programs in a way we can no longer afford, or to reduce taxes further than we have. That is why we are taking the next logical step by legislating limits on the growth of program spending through the spending control act. This legislation will give Canadians the assurance that program spending will be bound by real, not merely rhetorical, yardsticks. It will help to ensure the deficit will continue to be reduced and the public debt decline as a percentage of the economy.
It should be noted that the spending control act does not stand in isolation from the government's other measures to ensure a stronger economy by putting Canada's financial house in order. The act specifically reinforces the expenditure control plan introduced in the 1990 budget and broadened in each of the two budgets since then. It complements the debt servicing and reduction account which will receive all net revenues from the goods and services tax to ensure that our medium-term deficit and debt reduction goals are achieved.
Taken together, these measures will help us to secure the low inflation targets we have set out, targets that have helped to reduce inflation and bring interest rates down. Spending restraint and deficit reduction will help to keep inflation and interest rates down. This in turn is the essential foundation for the sustainable economic growth, expanding investment and new job creation.
As hon. members are aware, the government submitted a draft version of the spending control act to the Standing Committee on Finance. As a result of the committee's recommendations, a number of changes to the draft act have been incorporated into the final legislation. I would like briefly to review the most significant of these changes.
First, only the major self-financing programs will be exempt from the spending control limits. The act does not constrain the most important stabilizer in our economy, the unemployment insurance account. In the case of three farm insurance programs-the Agriculture Commodities Stabilization Account, the Gross Revenue Insurance Fund and the Crop Re-insurance Fund-only federal advances to cover deficits of these three programs will be exempt. All other self-financing programs are now included in the spending control limits.
April 8, 1992

Second, the draft bill provides that any overspending in one year could be made up in future years covered by the act. As hon. members are aware, the act now specifies that any overspending must be recovered within two fiscal years following a fiscal year in which overspending may occur.
Third, the draft bill was silent on the question of what would happen after 1995-96 when the act would normally expire. The Minister of Finance will now be required to recommend in the 1994 budget whether the act should be extended beyond the 1995-96 fiscal year. In addition, if at any time of the 1994 and 1995 budgets the spending limits have been exceeded, the government will have to indicate how this overspending will be recovered under the three-year catch-up rule.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being seven o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Governor in Council should amend the regulations made pursuant to the Export and Import Permits Act to provide that importations under the authority of General Import Permits No. 1 (dairy products), No. 2 (chickens), No. 7 (turkey) and No. 8 (eggs) shall be subject to a mandatory 48-hour stay of the importer in the country from which the goods are imported.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion today which I believe is important to Canadian farmers and to Canadians as a whole.
The intent of this motion is to make sure that people who are importing goods under general import permits must stay in the other country of origin of those products for at least 48 hours before they come back to Canada.
Private Members' Business
Before I proceed too far in this discussion, I want to make it clear what it is I expect to achieve from this particular motion. A motion such as this gives an opinion to the Government of Canada that it should take a certain action in the future. It is not an act of Parliament, it is not a bill that will go through our process of committees and back here on report and third reading and on to the Senate for Royal Assent and become law.
It is a votable motion which will have a maximum of two hours and 45 minutes of debate. The hours of debate will work through our Private Members' Business routine and each hour may be separated by two or three weeks of House sitting time, so the final day of debate and the vote on this particular motion could occur in June or perhaps even later than that in this particular year.
This is a motion whereby the Parliament of Canada passes on its advice to the Government of Canada. While far from binding on the government, the passage of a motion such as this will be an opinion hard to ignore. If in the course of time the government accepts the advice, then this motion will have its desired effect.
I have noted in previous debates that our citizens are not reminded about our complicated processes and they often wonder about things that happen. In fact, observers of a supply day proceedings have become very irritated because they did not understand what was occurring. I hope this little explanation will put this motion in its proper perspective.
We have recently had on the Hill thousands of farmers concerned about the GATT negotiations and about the effects of a proposed agreement that was put forward. My motion today addresses a smaller but growing problem for many of these same people. These are the farmers working under supply managed systems and they number about some 32,000 dairy farmers across Canada and 3,000 poultry producers.
My motion would also make significant progress in reducing day shopping trips across our borders. Day trips are taking billions of dollars out of the hands of Canadian retailers.
Our first supply managed system began in Ontario about 26 years ago. I can remember that prior to that time, as a veterinarian, how the farmers were always

April 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
subject to the whims of the bottlers. They would upgrade their buildings, they would provide milk for the fluid market. Fluid is the milk we drink. Then for some reason the bottler would decide they were not good enough and would skim off to somebody else and leave the farmers in the lurch and they would have to sell their milk for industrial purposes at a much lower price.
In 1965 the then Ontario minister of agriculture, the late Hon. William Stewart, worked out a system of supply management. Since that day systems have developed for industrial milk, that is milk used for cheese or butter; eggs; chicken, meaning broiler meat; turkey and the last of the agencies was broiler for hatching eggs.
The supply managed systems worked by controlling production and imports. By the use of global import quotas, levels of imports for some supply managed products are held at a percentage of domestic use that is comparable to the average penetration at the time the system was put in place. Other products, like cheese, have a set amount of quota that has not varied for many years. Domestic production is then controlled around these imports so that the total of imports and domestic production is equal to domestic needs.
The access to our market is generous when one compares it to other countries. I believe we import about 2.5 per cent of our domestic needs of dairy products and this varies with the particular product. The U.S.A. allows only a very small amount into their market.
May I add here that our dairy industry survives very well on a very small federal government subsidy, small in comparison to other costs. It is about $225 million, but the supply managed farmer in Canada get his support from the market. In the U.S.A., it has been suggested recently that their government spends about $6.2 billion in support of their dairy farmers, nearly 30 times the amount of direct support received by Canadian dairy farmers.
Besides the access on the global import quotas, we also provide special import permits that are available for products when a particular type of supply is not available in Canada. However, even this very generous access to our market is now being significantly increased by imports through cross-border shopping. It is this problem that my motion wants to address.
Cross-border shoppers use what is called general import permits, sometimes known as GIPs, to bring in for personal use limited amounts of any of the main supply managed products. The purpose of general import permits or GIPs is to allow small amounts of milk, chicken, eggs or turkey to be imported to avoid the difficulties associated with applying our import rules. When GIPs were put in place, the question of crossborder shopping was a veiy small one, probably because our dollar was lower in value, our gasoline was less expensive and perhaps the psychology of cross-border shopping was not as deeply ingrained in the Canadian shopper.
Now all of these have changed and we have in the general import permits a growing problem for Canadian farmers. The change, as proposed in my motion, to provide a 48-hour stay in the U.S.A. before the use of a GIP would be a signal of support to Canadian farmers. As well, it would provide a significant boost to these troubled industries and would direct a large amount of business back to Canadian retail stores.
Perhaps I should say in fairness here that general import permits are the only method whereby casual importation can occur. If the GIPs are changed, as I hope they will be, there will be no opportunity to import these products within the first 48 hours away from Canada.
I want to tell members a little bit about how these general import permits are worded. No. 1, which is for dairy products, allows at each importation-and this could be several times a day, there is no limitation whatsoever as far as numbers are concerned-milk and milk products for personal use of amounts not exceeding $20 in value.
Each GIP or each general import permit is written something like this:
1.	This permit may be cited as the Import of Dairy Products for Personal Use Permit.
2.	A person may, under the authority of this General Import Permit, import into Canada from any country any dairy products for the personal use of the importer and his household, not exceeding $20 in value for each importation.
3.	Where completion and validation of a customs entry form is required with respect to any dairy product that is imported under the authority of this General Import Permit, that form shall be endorsed Imported under the Authority of General Import Permit (or the equivalent in French).
April 8, 1992

There are several other general import permits, but the three I want to discuss are No. 2, which allows the importation of up to nine kilograms of chicken meat per trip, GIP No. 7 which allows, among other things, the importation of one whole turkey or turkey products not exceeding 10 kilograms in weight and GIP No. 8 which allows a person to import up to two dozen eggs per trip.
I am sure that these limits apply to each person so I can see a family going across the border and each person in that family could bring back this amount of these products, multiplying the effect many times over.
The Government of Canada has conducted studies in recent years on the amount of dairy products brought into Canada by day-trippers to the U.S.A. Undoubtedly much more is also imported by people who stay for longer periods.
The results of the study which I will now quote-there will be quite a few figures here-are out of date because day trips have increased dramatically since even the last study in 1990.
Day trips were growing by approximately 20 per cent per year until 1991 when they grew by 10 per cent. The results I am about to quote could be up to 30 per cent out of date.
Agriculture Canada studies show that cross-border shopping for dairy products occurred even when prices were lower here than in the U.S.A., and I want to repeat even when prices were lower here than in the U.S.A. In each of the studies, I think there were seven different times that were studied, two times out of the seven, prices were lower here. That is something that many would not understand.
Maybe people do not understand that milk, turkey and chicken are often used as loss leaders, products that are sold at a loss or no profit just to get the customer into the store. Following this thought, the price of milk, chicken or turkey meat, or eggs might be influenced more by the need for customers than by the original price and would undoubtedly be higher the further away from the border that you go.
It is also a probable follow-up of this that border points would be an excellent place for American whole-
Private Members' Business
salers or retailers to have their short-dated products that have a lower value in the first place.
According to an Agriculture Canada study in New Brunswick in 1988, and this is very outdated, day-trippers imported 4.2 per cent of fresh milk, and .5 per cent of the cheese consumed in that province.
In southern Ontario, just the southern part of Ontario, in 1990 the study showed day-trippers imported about 1.26 per cent of fluid milk and .71 per cent of cheese consumed.
In northern Ontario the figures are larger, 8.29 per cent for milk, and 1.2 per cent for cheese. In British Columbia the figures were 7.6 per cent for milk and 4.5 per cent for cheese.
As I said earlier, each of these figures could be up 30 per cent and in the New Brunswick case because the study was done in 1988 perhaps the figures could be up as much as 75 per cent.
In 1991 it is estimated that 2.7 per cent of all the Cheddar cheese and 3 per cent of all the fluid milk consumed in Canada were imported by cross-border shopping on a day-tripping basis. Also one survey estimates that 2.7 per cent of the butter consumed was purchased by cross-border shoppers.
This is nearly as much as the significant penetration of our dairy market which we allow under global import quotas though indeed butter and milk are not covered under global import quotas.
It is also known that a great deal of chicken is purchased by day-trippers but the figures are not available. We do know that cross-border shopping accounts for approximately 3.6 per cent of all the turkey consumption in Canada and day-trippers would account for most of this. This is equal to the amount that is allowed under global import quotas for turkeys.
It is estimated through these surveys that anywhere from 20 per cent to 85 per cent of day-trippers to the States, and this varies depending on the locale that you are talking about, up to 85 per cent of day-trippers buy as much as 1.3 American gallons of milk each trip and about 20 per cent buy 1.25 pounds of cheese on each trip.
In 1990, using all of the estimates I have just quoted, and based on information in this little booklet supplied to me by Dairy Farmers of Canada called "Facts and Figures at a Glance" the day-trippers brought into

April 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
Canada about 10 million gallons of milk and 4.4 million pounds of cheese.
In 1992 based on the probable increase in day trips, this is likely 30 per cent higher, or 13 million gallons of milk and 5.7 million pounds of cheese.
In just these two commodities alone, we all must wonder: what does this large amount mean for Canadian retailers and Canadian farmers? Again my calculations from this little booklet suggest that these amounts are equal to sales losses for our retailers of some $79 million or $80 million a year in milk, and $25 million in cheese sales.
Undoubtedly many more millions of dollars in sales of other products are lost to Canadians because of day-trippers. Just the loss of fluid milk sales alone means that about 200 herds with an average herd size of perhaps 50 cows are no longer able to produce milk in Canada. Perhaps another 200 herds are gone because of other sales. I want to repeat that this is only for day-trippers importing fluid milk under GIPs. Much more comes in after longer stays out of the country and in other products.
I want to now admit that my calculations may be wrong, but they are not totally wrong. The fact remains that Canadian supply managed industries and Canadian retailers are being badly hurt at what best can be described as a back door method of importation that occurs through default or a process of convenience.
I want this House to endorse this motion. Before I can ask for that support, which I believe I have shown would be a great boost for Canadian retailers and farmers, I should probably discuss the implication of the end point of this motion on our trading agreements.
Supply managed products are on the import control list through a variety of laws which allow for supply management. As I have said, imports do occur through global import quotas or set quotas to an amount that approximates the average percentage penetration in years prior to supply management or indeed an arbitrary amount.
The provision of general import permits, as I spoke of earlier, are an exception to our border controls. They are largely for the benefit of Canadian day-trippers. Altering GIPs, as proposed in this motion, would not break our GATT trade agreements as it would mean a partial retraction of a privilege that is given. It is not a retraction of something in our trade agreements. I do in fact have excerpts of a legal opinion which I will read into the record here. The same legal opinion says that altering the terms of the GIPs does not offend the free trade agreement.
I will just read parts of this excerpt, because I am probably going to run out of time here in a minute. As compared to the free trade agreement:
Article 710 makes it clear that, unless otherwise specifically provided in chapter 7, Canada retains its GATT rights and obligations in respect of agricultural goods, including its rights and obligations under Article XI.
Nowhere else in chapter 7 are there references to matters affecting GIPs. In another part of this same opinion, it says:
Provided Canada has met its GATT, Article XI:2(c)(i) requirements, no further product need be imported. If Canada chooses to let additional product in,-
Indeed that is what we did with the GIPS:
-it is free to set the terms under which entry of the product will be permitted.
In this respect a close parallel can be drawn between GIPs and supplementary import permits granted for poultry and egg products that I spoke about earlier.
I want to close with this summary. Many thousands of people are making day trips to the United States in ever-increasing numbers, though that has perhaps slowed to a degree right now. One of the major reasons for doing so is to access markets where milk, poultry, turkey meat and eggs may be cheaper.
We know that usually these prices are held especially low on purpose to attract those very shoppers to the United States. I have suggested that if you were to look at true United States' prices you would find them much higher if you moved away from the border where lower prices would not entice Canadians.
General import permits were put in place before the present expansion of day-tripping and were put in place as a convenience for travellers and customs administration purposes. All of these products, by the way, are subject to tariffs. If you think about the calculation of a
April 8, 1992

tariff on a $20 item, back when the tariffs were 17.5 per cent, that would be about $3.40. Even then it was not worth doing the book work for it. Indeed, the tariffs are coming down under the free trade agreement making it less likely that anybody would want to take the time to do it.
The changing shopping patterns have turned the convenience of general import permits for day-trippers into a major pipeline of importation. The amounts, in some cases, are nearing the historical penetration into our market before supply management.
If my motion is passed and if the government accepts the advice of this Parliament, imports of these products should be greatly reduced since only those people who stay out of Canada for at least 48 hours will be able to avail themselves of this privilege.
My motion does not contravene the trading rules with other nations. It simply suggests a change in the terms of an exception to the rules of trade. While I am quickly gaining insight into the many aspects of this problem, it is very true to say that the debate has just begun on the matters of what I seek. I ask the support of this House for our farmers and retailers. That support can be shown by supporting this motion.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by commending the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo for the motion he presented in the House today. For the benefit of those who may not have read all the details, I would like to share the text of this motion with the House. It reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this House, the Governor in Council should amend the regulations made pursuant to the Export and Import Permits Act to provide that importations under the authority of General Import Permits No. 1 (dairy products), No. 2 (chicken), No. 7 (turkey) and No. 8 (eggs) shall be subject to a mandatory 48-hour stay of the importer in the country from which the goods are imported.
This is an issue of particular interest to farmers in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and in fact to farmers across Canada. Some of my constituents are here in Ottawa today, and I wish to thank them for their support. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that today, the Embrun farm co-operative's executive called
Private Members' Business
me to say it supported the motion, as did the members of the Embrun Chamber of Commerce.
The regional representative of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, Mr. Gaston Levac, also called to ask whether I intended to support the motion before the House today. I certainly do and I welcome this opportunity to do just that.

Some people are perhaps still thinking that crossborder shopping is not a major problem in Canada. I want to tell you that if anyone still thinks that then they are in serious error.

I would like to mention some figures for traffic on the bridge at Cornwall, which happens to be in my riding. In 1988, 560,000 crossings were recorded. In 1989, this figure was 650,000; in 1990, 778,000, and in 1991, 1,400,000. People get on the bridge at Akwesasne to go to the United States. In 1992, traffic figures for the month of January alone showed 18,000 more crossings than in the previous year.
It is no coincidence, that in Massena, New York, a giant supermarket and a big shopping mall covering nearly one million square feet have been built to serve a population of 10,000. Of course, the whole point is to serve Canadians from shops in the United States, and the material loss to our merchants in Canada is incredible. In 1991, for instance, a loss of $36 million was mentioned for merchants in Cornwall alone, with a loss in tax revenue of $5.1 million, also in Cornwall. As far as gas is concerned, the figures show a loss of $15 million and a further loss in taxes of $6.5 million, out of a total of $340 million in retail sales for Cornwall.

Some people think that Canadian fanners are somehow making lots of money. That is a misconception. They are thinking as well that Canadian milk is much more expensive than it is in the United States. Of course that is wrong as well.
I will give some instances to prove the points I am making. I recently received a letter from Mr. William Howieson, of Knoll Top Farm Ltd., R.R. 1, Alexandria, in which he quotes certain statistics from a well known farm publication, Hoard's Dairyman. It is of course widely known to all farmers who are here in Ottawa today, as well as many members of this House.

April 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
Let me give some of these figures. Mr. Howieson states in his letter: "The 1990 New York business summary of 395 farms reveals that the total cost to produce 100 pounds of milk is $15.27. The comparable figure in 1990 for the Ontario farm accounting project of 204 farms was $15.32". That is only a five-cent difference in the cost of producing milk in Ontario than in New York State.
Those who think that our farms in the area are not productive are wrong, very wrong. In particular I must say that the people who wrote an editorial in The Ottawa Citizen last February 22 in which they said that farmers should face the facts and so on are wrong, very wrong as well. They do not know those facts and they should.
I also want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, from the same farm publication Hoard's Dairyman, that a dairy farmer in New York State receives in direct subsidies double the amount paid to Canadian farmers. You do not have to be a Baie Comeau lawyer to figure out that it costs a lot less in the United States, not given the different cost in producing but given the different subsidy rate.
What we should realize is that this different subsidy rate does not even always result in lower priced milk in the United States than in Canada. However the consumer for whatever reason, principally because of the high taxes on gasoline and because of the GST, is misled into believing that many other consumer products are cheaper in the United States. First of all it is not even true sometimes, even if the GST in Canada is included. Nevertheless that perception is there.
To give a few instances to prove my point, I have here statistics compiled by Agriculture Canada on cross-border shopping dated November 1991. I want to give the differences in prices in milk in the United States and Canada at the retail level. In Prescott, for instance, the price of milk was $2.99 in Canada and $2.72 in Ogdens-burg. I do not think I would want to cross the bridge between Prescott and Ogdensburg and pay the toll fee to save a quarter, more exactly 27 cents. That is all the saving there is.
Between Cornwall and Massena, the Cornwall price for milk is $2.99 and Massena, $2,745 on average for four
litres. That is a difference of 24.5 cents. You do not pay too many tolls with those kinds of differences.
Consumers are not always well informed when they think that U.S. prices are much cheaper. Sometimes indeed there is very little difference, particularly in the area of dairy products. Nevertheless the hard reality is that many people are buying their milk in the United States.
The motion presented to us by the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo would help to curb that.
I for one am glad to support this motion. It is my hope, notwithstanding the fact that we have five hours to debate it and this process could take as long as a month, that tonight, shortly before the adjournment time at eight o'clock, we could get a consensus of this House to adopt this motion this very day.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to support the motion before the House and to recommend to all other members in the House that they do so as well.
Our friend from Perth is attempting to point out a difficulty that has arisen probably not so much due to our border crossing rules but due to some problems that have arisen because the costs of our gasoline, alcohol and cigarettes are considerably higher than similar products in the United States due to GST, PST, excise taxes, et cetera.
What we have seen happening in areas close to the border is what has become a tradition for some Canadians: to spend some of their time off on weekends or time off work going into the United States to fill the tank with gas or maybe to buy some alcohol products or some cigarettes. While they are there the habit has been developed in a lot of cross-border areas of bringing back some dairy products or some groceries.
This has been a concern of some of the people who produce dairy products, eggs, chicken and turkey because they are working in a supply managed system where they force themselves to abide by certain rules, not to overproduce. In return for abiding by those rules, there have been limits to the importation of those products into Canada. These were spelled out once again in the proposals of their marketing plan, but there have been
April 8, 1992

some chinks in that process with the adoption of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement whereby Canada agreed to permit imports of turkey meat and chicken parts up to certain specified percentages that are laid out in chapter seven.
What we have been seeing, as has been described by the previous two speakers, has been quite a rapid increase in day trips into the United States. On their way back, they purchase gas, alcohol and cigarettes as well as some milk, eggs and cheese or perhaps some poultry. We have seen quite an increase in the amount of marketing that has been supplanted from outside sources as a result of these day trips.
It is estimated, for instance, that 27 per cent of the butter, 2 per cent of the cheese, and 3 per cent of the fluid milk consumed in Canada are imported by way of these day trips. No exact estimate is available to me at the moment with regard to chicken, but a certain amount comes in. As well it is estimated that about 3.6 per cent of all the turkey consumed in Canada comes in by way of day trips.
It is a question that affects a fairly large, though perhaps not yet significant, amount of the Canadian product that is out there for market. It does not just hurt Canadian farmers. It also hurts Canadian processors and Canadian retailers who miss that amount of business which could be done in Canada.
I know that some members in this House and some members of the general public may say: "This is only fair. We are into a new world order. We have free trade all over the place and people have to learn to adjust to competition". However, let us look at the facts in this case. In the case of dairy products some people may ask: "How come Americans don't come into Canada to buy milk?" The facile answer would be: "Oh, the price is a lot higher in Canada". The previous member shot holes in that. The price is really not that much different.
However, there is one thing we have not discussed so far in the debate, that it is illegal for somebody to take dairy products from Canada into the United States. The United States has maintained that right under article XXII of the GATT ever since the inception of GATT. For more than 50 years it has been illegal to take dairy products from Canada into the United States. With these dairy products that are coming in now, if the car turned around and was not unloaded of the groceries before going back, they would have to return them ironically to the Canadian side if they were caught.
Private Members' Business
There is a certain question of fairness involved here as well as just straight economics. The economics have been stated quite clearly by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who spoke before me. Costs for farmers on either side of the border to produce dairy products are virtually the same. The Americans do have an advantage in having far more subsidies for dairy products than farmers on our side, but their actual production costs are virtually the same, within a nickel a hundredweight. The price of two litres of milk in stores on our side of the border is $2.99; on their side, $2.74 with the currency adjustment taken into account. For about 25 cents it really is not worth making the trip for the milk alone.
Most of the day-trippers make a trip to the States just as a tourist and to shop in a different environment. Retailers in the United States have certainly positioned themselves well to take advantage of this. My hon. friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was pointing out the new shopping centre at Massena, New York, which services a relatively small area of New York has an awful lot of Canadian customers who make the thing profitable and make it work.
There are some differences as we move up the processing, retail and distribution chain in Canada that we see, however. This has been shown by a number of agricultural economists who have done studies on the so-called supply managed commodities in Canada. They have discovered when they compare Canadian practice with American practice that our processors and our retailers command much higher mark-ups for what they do in the provision of services and processing than do their American counterparts. That accounts in large part for the difference in price at retail between Canada and the United States.
The finger-pointing on our side of the border that goes on by people who speak for the processors and some of the chain stores would leave one to think that they are the biggest advocates of consumer rights in the country. They are simply advocating their own self-interest when they point their finger at supply management and at farmers who produce under a system of supply management.
They do not tell us that production costs at the farms here are equivalent to or in fact in some commodities slightly better than American cost in practice. They keep pointing the finger at those farmers on supply management and a system which permits farmers to get cost of production, a rare thing in this country in our farm

April 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
economic climate. As long as they are pointing at the farmer they are hoping consumers will not start looking at the bloated processing costs and mark-ups and the mark-ups at wholesaling and retail that we have in our country compared to what the Americans have in their country.
Granted we have bigger spaces to distribute food in. We have a smaller population. There are going to be some higher costs. For anyone who wants to get involved in arguing the merits of so-called free trade, some of the people who have been critical of farmers have missed the point. I think we should in fact adopt the motion before us. It would show that the House of Commons and members on all sides are in favour of a strengthened article XI and the continuation of supply-managed marketing boards and this change to the levies to day-trippers would show very clearly to all and sundry that this is our intention.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to, at the outset, compliment the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo for his Motion No. 633 that he has placed before us this evening.
The motion really seeks to amend the Export and Import Permits Act to make it so that there is a requirement that a person coming into Canada bringing certain commodities that are under supply managed systems in our agriculture community would have to have been out of the country for 48 hours before the goods could be brought in.
This motion is seeking to advise the Governor in Council to amend the regulations to the general import permits that allow small amounts of supply managed commodities into Canada for personal use.
In my riding of Fraser Valley East and the lower mainland of British Columbia, we feel directly the impact of the increasing cross-border shopping.
Fraser Valley East contains a large part of the agriculture in British Columbia. That means in my riding there is the bulk of producers of the supply managed commodities in the dairy industry in particular, also some egg,
chicken and turkey producers. Supply management is very important to those of us who live in the Fraser valley.
Because we live right along the border, we are very sensitive to cross-border shopping and to its increase, especially for the same day shoppers who are bringing back milk, eggs, chicken and, of course, have filled up their cars with gasoline. Farmers from Rosedale, Chilliwack, Matsqui, Abbotsford, Agassiz and other centres are feeling the pressures on their livelihood that this cross-border shopping causes.
I know that this measure would affect these same day shoppers who bring those commodities into our country, but it would ensure that the spirit of supply management is maintained.
These general import permits exist to enable people to bring supply managed products into Canada in small amounts for personal use and to provide individuals with a special category or dispensation. In simple terms, these import permits are a regulatory way of making an exception to the general rule.
Let us look at why we have the existing rule, why we have in place a system of general import and export permits. This system allows us to make adjustments to the regulations that control the volume of specific commodities leaving or coming into Canada.
The general import permits are consistent with our commitments under GATT and the free trade agreement. Motion No. 633 simply wants to respond to a change in circumstances that is having an impact on supply-managed commodities and it is calling for an adjustment.
We have singled out dairy, egg, chicken and turkey industries in Canada as being special and in need of this special treatment. We have established a system of supply management in Canada for certain agricultural commodities because we are committed to the maintenance of a secure supply of domestically produced food. Canada needs to have a firm and consistent food supply.
For producers, we have removed the temptation to compromise on quality by taking short cuts on healthy farming practices. In return, supply management ensures that producers receive a reasonable price for their products. The fact is that this is the most open system
April 8, 1992

that you could possibly have. They have to publish what their costs are and then adjustments are made once or twice a year to the cost of production formulas that they use. There is no way that they can turn around and hide those costs from the people who do the checking in order to establish what their price will be.
This system works. This government is committed to supply management and has incorporated it as part of our negotiating position at the GATT. Cross-border shopping, specifically by day-trippers, threatens to undermine the integrity of supply management.
The B.C. Dairy Council estimates that the impact of cross-border shopping on dairy alone ranges from $120 to $150 million a year. This is in British Columbia only. This is obviously damaging to the dairy industry in B.C.
Agriculture Canada cites data indicating that in 1988, up to 7.6 per cent of B.C. fresh milk sales imported from the United States by consumers who had been out of the country for less than 24 hours. That was back in 1988. That figure is higher today than it was back in 1988.
In my riding of Fraser Valley East at the Huntingdon border crossing, a 1988 study shows that out of 1,464,440 vehicles crossing the border for less than 24 hours, 73 per cent purchased milk and 26 per cent purchased cheese. The average milk purchase was around seven litres. This is a significant problem.
The data I cite is three to four years old. This is an imprecise science and current data is difficult to obtain. This in itself speaks to the motion and the need for a higher degree of scrutiny. Industry projections that impact on quota and price depend on a sound knowledge of consumption in Canada and the source of that consumption.
When we realize the magnitude of same day crossborder shopping and its impact on supply managed commodities, we realize that we need to take action.
I believe that motion 633 is the action appropriate to deal with the present situation. The system of general import permits exists for this very purpose, to adjust to the changing needs of Canadians.
As the member for Mackenzie just told us, there are rules and regulations that the Americans use for taking dairy products in the United States. Why should Canada
Private Members' Business
not have a mirror of that or very close to mirror what their regulations are?
By requiring that those who import dairy, eggs, chicken and turkey into Canada to have been out of the country for 48 hours is necessary to protect supply management. If you are away 48 hours we are not limiting the ability of individuals to import these products for their personal consumption but we are responding to a significant problem in a manner consistent with the existence of our supply managed system. If we allow the integrity of the supply managed system to erode, we will defeat the purpose of the system itself. Therefore we must respond to ensure that the intent of the system in principle is extended to maintain the effect of the system in fact.
The Chamber of Commerce in my area tells me that it believes a great deal of the cross-border shopping is caused by the price of gasoline. I agree with them. Because of the taxes that we as a federal government have on gasoline and also the taxes the provincial government has levied on gasoline, there is a significant amount of tax on gasoline consumed by the family car. Nonetheless we know when there is a bit of a price war between the gas stations and the price drops down to below 50 cents a litre, it reduces the traffic at the border significantly, in fact, up to one-third when it is down to 49.9 cents. If it drops below 49.9 cents to 46.9 or 45.9 it is even more than that.
All of the governments, provincial and federal, should be seriously looking at how we can reduce the temptation for our constituents to find it necessary to go across the border.
I lend my support to this motion that we have before us tonight. This is a reasonable and responsible approach to a very serious problem. Time does not permit me to address the issue from the perspective of eggs, chicken and turkeys. Suffice it to say that the implications are similar to that of the dairy industry that I just cited.
The farmers in my community want to know why they are being hung out to dry. They are anxious for us to take remedial action so that they can get on with their life and get along with their livelihood. We know they are efficient. They do not have to take a back seat to anyone for their efficiency in the supply of their commodities.

Private Members' Business
The government is committed to supply management. I see this motion as a logical and responsible continuation of that commitment. I urge all members to support this motion and look forward to the timely and successful passage of this very important initiative.
I believe this responds to a large extent to the very people who demonstrated on our lawns a few weeks back, some 20,000 to 30,000 strong. It also speaks to the needs, particularly of the dairy industry and the supply management industry in the lower mainland of British Columbia.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo tonight for introducing this motion into the House. By doing so, he has brought a very important private members' debate to fruition in this House.
He brought up the subject of cross-border shopping, of course, in all its reality. There are people crossing the borders to the United States to buy what they think is cheaper food and certainly cheaper gasoline. I would think that gasoline is certainly one of the big things that people go after when they cross the border, but there is another horrendous problem. That is the high taxation system in Canada. The GST was a big factor in promoting this, regardless of what anyone tries to argue to the contrary.
The high Canadian dollar hurts agriculture, forestry, and all natural resources in the country. When we have a supply management system here in Canada that we want to protect, we must use every advantage to do so.
I would say in all sincerity that the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo has done more by introducing this motion than the entire government has done to help farmers in this dilemma. This is a more constructive measure certainly than any the Minister of National Revenue has come up with in regard to cross-border shopping and how it hurts the farm community. As I said, it is better than the Government of Canada generally.
I was concerned about and interested in some of the statistics mentioned by my hon. friend from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell. He was dead on on some of those. Canadian farmers can compete against anybody if you give them a fair chance. But they must have a fair deal, a fair deal base from which to operate. They are very efficient.
Gene Whelan, as you know, when he was Minister of Agriculture always used to say that the Canadian farmer can compete with anybody, that they are one of the most efficient industries in the world.
If big corporations were affected by some of the damaging financial arrangements by the Government of Canada such as those that affect the farmers, the board of directors would simply pick up its valuables and move south of the border. But the farmer cannot pick up his farm and move it elsewhere, nor would he want to leave Canada.
The feet of our farm community are planted firmly on Canadian soil and all our farmers and their families ask for is a fair financial climate within which to operate. Surely that is not too much to ask of your own government in your own country.
Some people are of the opinion that the family farm is going to continue regardless of the economic climate, regardless of the exchange rate, regardless of supply management, and on it goes. But you know, there is only so much that an industry can take when it is hit from several directions at once.
I must say that the farm community must have a fair deal base from which to operate. They do not need all of the above disadvantages as a challenge. Give them that fair deal and they will compete with anyone. The government's determination to keep the dollar high is indeed nothing short of an attack on Canadian farmers and other businesses.
On the price of gasoline, yes we all know gasoline is cheaper south of the border, but we also know that the American nation has something like in excess of a $2 trillion debt. They are living in a fairyland. The day is going to come when they are going to have to tax that gasoline and they are going to have to bring in taxation to Washington to balance their books or they are going to be the sinking empire of the world. They are living in a wonderland and the reality has not struck home yet.
I would like to follow up on something that my hon. friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said a while ago about the comparative cost of milk on each side of
April 8, 1992

the border. At Landsdowne near Kingston, the Thousand Islands Bridge, four litres of milk costs $3.29. This is a 1991 Info Results Ltd. price. At Watertown, just across the border, it is $2.86, not a big difference when you have to drive that distance. I think Watertown is some 30 or 35 miles from Kingston.
Then you go to Windsor and Detroit. There is a very interesting figure here. The price of four litres of milk in Windsor, Ontario, is $2.49 and in Detroit, in Canadian dollars, the price of four litres of milk is $2.49. Exactly the same. You have to burn up the gas, take the car, drive across into the United States and go through the hassles of the traffic in Detroit to buy it. There is no advantage there.
I have said before that we are a great Canadian nation. A new national spirit is being born in this country. We have to look to the past when our Canadian farmers fed Europeans and the British Isles during World War II. The European continent has not been very kind to Canada in these modern days either. What we have to do in this country is develop an aggressive attitude. We have to bring in measures such as this very constructive one the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo brought in today. We thank him for it.
I want to sit down because I know there is an hon. member across the way who wants to speak for a few minutes. I want to give him some time. I would hope that all members would sit down at exactly one minute to eight tonight so that this vote can be taken and we can get on with one of the most constructive measures that any government member has proposed, including the cabinet, on the farm question to date.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I guess the debate tonight was whether or not I was going to have a chance to speak because we are running very close to the hour.
I do want to congratulate all members on both sides of the House on this important debate on this important motion. I think there are a lot of similarities in thought.
Private Members' Business
It is refreshing to see that we are on the same side of the issue. I think we all support this motion.
If the people back home really want to know what we are talking about, it can be best summed up by simply stating that this motion for the first time protects something we want. It is protecting our markets, our industries and in doing so is protecting our towns, cities and villages. It is a start to protecting the Canadian economy, something we have not thought enough about in this place.
Obviously on the minds of the countries we trade with is the protection of their economies, and they do a very good job of it. We are reminded of that and have been reminded of that often in recent weeks. We only have to look at the rules of origin that the Americans are attacking us on in the automobile industry, specifically the Honda automobile.
Yesterday we found out what they were up to in the softwood lumber proposal they threw at us. Again, it is a clever way to protect their own industries. We are not going to buy into that. What we do not want to buy into is anything that will jeopardize our supply managed industries, our supply managed farm groups. They are important to us and they are doing a good job. Again, I think it goes back to that old line I have used on occasion, that selling is teaching. I do not think that is something we have done a good job of in this country, teaching or explaining to Canadian people why supply management is so important. We have to do more of that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list in the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being eight o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 9,1992