1992-06-15

Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex) moved: that Bill C-226, an act to reduce automotive pollution, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present Bill C-226 for debate in the House today.
This bill is called the automotive pollution reduction act. It requires that all automotive fuels in Canada contain at least 3.2 per cent oxygen and that the use of MMT be banned in Canada.
This bill sets out an implementation period of six months. Being a realist, I am prepared to accept an implementation period of two years from the date of passage. This change can be implemented in committee.
This is an important bill in this day of environmental concerns and the amount of automotive pollution taking place.
Because of incomplete gasoline combustion hydrocarbons are being released into the atmosphere. The three largest aromatic hydrocarbon components of gasoline are benzenes, toluenes and xylenes. They all have a serious health impact and have been placed on the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency's priority substance list.
Increasing the oxygen content requirement to 3.2 per cent will result in complete combustion of the fuel burning of these hydrocarbons. As a result, emissions are much cleaner.
Since the introduction of this bill the government has introduced its green plan initiative. I believe this bill dovetails the green plan very well and strengthens it.
Ground level ozone and greenhouse gases will be reduced. The government did take steps to reduce automotive pollutants as promised in the green plan in its 1992 budget announcement of a tax break for the ethanol portion of ethanol blended fuels. Although this is an important commitment and I applaud it, it is one that has to be strengthened.
Because of this initiative, United Co-operatives of Ontario now has ethanol for sale in 21 of its stations and gas bars in southwestern Ontario. The first was opened on May 28 in the riding of the member of Parliament for Kent.
Although the green plan has proposed tighter emission standards by 1994, the proposals in this bill before us today will have a more immediate effect by changing the formulation of fuels which will reduce the emissions without substantial redesign of pollution control devices.
By banning MMT it will keep present control devices operating effectively. For example, studies show that compared to regular unleaded MMT-free gasoline, a 10 per cent ethanol blended gasoline reduces automotive emissions as follows: carbon dioxide by 5.9 per cent; carbon monoxide by 25 per cent; volatile organic compounds by 8.5 per cent; nitrous oxide by 5.7 per cent; and urban ozone by 5.3 per cent. This is particularly significant if one considers that a 1984 Environment Canada study found that adding the allowable amount of MMT to gasoline increased hydrocarbon emissions by 27 per cent.

Private Members' Business
The Canadian Renewable Fuels Association predicts in its brief to the House of Commons committee on global warming that the use of a 10 per cent ethanol blended gasoline would mean a direct reduction of 10 per cent in toxic carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere once the photosynthesis process and benefit of by-products are taken into account.
Denver, Colorado reported an 8 per cent reduction in carbon monoxide levels after just two months of use of ethanol blended fuels.
In the course of our research, we found that Canada allowed the use of this gasoline additive that has been banned in the United States since 1978. The gasoline additive I am referring to is MMT.
In the most recent waiver application to have MMT reinstated into the automotive fuels in the United States, the amount requested was only half the amount allowed in Canada. The request was for 31 milligrams of manganese per U.S. gallon compared with 66 milligrams of manganese per U.S. gallon allowed in Canada. Why is it applying for a waiver using only half the amount currently being used in Canada?
This gasoline additive, methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl or MMT, was first banned in 1977 in California. One of the U.S. leaders in air pollution control, the California Air Resources Board, in response to the concern expressed by that state's department of health regarding the potential health hazard of the manganese additive officially requested that MMT be phased out of all gasoline sold in California, effectively banning its sale. In 1978, it was banned throughout the United States in unleaded gasoline by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States government.
This discovery led to a whole series of revelations.
First of all, I discovered that Canada does not conduct emission testing with gasoline containing MMT as the Canadian testing standards cite the American code which prohibits the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline. Therefore, Canadian emission testing of new automobiles is conducted with MMT-free gasoline imported from the United States. Consequently, Canadian automobile emission testing is a fraud.
I also discovered that in June 1990 while I was drafting my legislation the Environmental Protection Agency was conducting hearings into a waiver application submitted
by Ethyl Corporation to reallow MMT in unleaded gasoline in the United States, again proposing to use half the amount currently being used in Canada.
Ellen Silbergeld of the University of Maryland, formerly with the Environmental Defense Fund served on the EPA peer review panel on the EPA's most recent health assessment document on manganese. In her testimony in Washington, D.C. on June 22, 1990 she stated:
Manganese, like lead, is a cumulative toxin in that both its absorption and retention as well as its toxicity increase with time. At present there are insufficient data on the low level chronic sequelae of manganese exposure, similar to the case that was made for lead in 1925.
That was 67 years ago and here we are going through the process again.
Dr. John Donaldson is one of Canada's top neurotox-ologists. He along with other recognized experts in the field, such as Dr. Frank Labella and Dr. Andre Barbeau, have conducted research on this issue. Dr. Donaldson was one of the scientists selected by the National Research Council of Canada to participate in the mideighties study entitled "Manganese and the Canadian Environment". Dr. Donaldson told the EPA in Washington on June 22, 1990:
-one of the major theories in leading edge neuroscience which relate to the environmental issues of today is that there are agents, neurotoxins-insidious neurotoxins like manganese which are age accelerating neurotoxins.
Most vulnerable to the MMT's toxic hit are unborn children, infants, and young children whose defence systems against the retention of manganese have not yet been fully developed.
Manganese in its normal form is not that dangerous; we have it in our food, in our bodies, and we have it in the earth. But in the form of MMT which comes out of the exhaust systems of cars is the area where we are most concerned.
To quote Dr. Donaldson:
What we are talking about here is that manganese is insidious, a stealth toxin, hitting early and perhaps often and then revealing the damage as we get older.
Dr. Donaldson's contention is supported by other scientists including Aljandro Daniels of the large pharmaceutical company Burroughs Wellcome. "I totally agree with Donaldson," he is quoted as saying on the basis of his own animal research.
June 15, 1992

The U.S. Congressional Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Health and the Environment in a letter to the United States Environmental Protection Agency dated June 29, 1990 and signed by the chairman and three other members of the committee warned:
As a nation, we cannot afford to subject ourselves again to the tragic results of using a neurotoxic heavy metal in gasoline. Nor is the use of such a dangerous compound necessary, given the wide availability of octane enhancers that are a derivative from farm products, such as ETBE and ethanol, and are not hazardous air pollutants.
If anyone wishes to examine the credibility of corporate arguments and their environmental and public health record, North America's experience with lead and gasoline is the place to start.
To quote toxicologist Ellen Silbergeld again, she says:
MMT is exactly like lead. All you have to do is substitute the word "lead" and you will have what they said (back in 1925).
Again in the 1990s, the company that manufactures MMT in the United States for export to Canada argues the amount of manganese in gasoline is insignificant in health terms but very important to the U.S. economy. I should point out there is no MMT manufactured in Canada.
It should be noted this corporation has attempted four times to have the additive reallowed in United States fuel. The most recent attempt was denied by the EPA in January 1992.
EPA noted in its denial of waiver that five car manufacturers, Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Chrysler, and Nissan, as well as the Association of International Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association all recommended the denial of requests and expressed two major concerns with regard to the addition of MMT with unleaded gasolines.
Thus the intent of Bill C-226, an act to reduce automotive pollution is to ban MMT and to require that all gasoline sold in Canada contains 3.2 per cent oxygen.
Studies show a net energy benefit in the production of ethanol, taking into consideration such agriculture inputs as machinery fuel, fertilizer and ethanol production costs, such as processing heat and electricity.
If existing waste heat from another industry could be
Private Members' Business
utilized such as from Ontario Hydro's Douglas Point reactor on Lake Huron, then the net energy balance would be even better. Such utilization, plus modem technology would result in a balance of approximately four times the energy inputs required.
But the process squeezes more than ethanol from the feedstock. When ethanol is made from grain, the byproduct is a high protein stillage, a mash that includes original vitamins and minerals which can be used as an animal feed or as an additive for low nutrition human food.
This by-product can be dried and used as a flour for cookies, biscuits, bread or muffins. It is extremely low in calories and high in protein and fibre content. It will be of particular value for Third World countries and for starving children of which there are millions in Third World countries today. It has great potential as a low calorie health food right here in Canada.
In August 1991 Mohawk Fuels and Sask Pools opened an ethanol plant at Lanigan, Saskatchewan, with an adjacent feedlot to utilize the stillage for beef cattle production. It is projected that this will allow them to produce ethanol for as little as 27 cents a litre.
The financially fragile farm sector will benefit by producing grain for ethanol fuel.
Rural small town Canada too will gain financially from increased employment in the fuel ethanol plants which would have to be built and operated. In turn, the depopulation of Canada's rural areas would be reduced. In addition a new market would be created that would consume about one-fifth of Canada's grain production.
I hope that members on all sides of the House will support this bill. It will benefit our environment, this planet, our economy, and the health of the Canadian people, particularly our children.
Mr. Speaker, because of the number of members who wish to speak on this bill I request at this time that the House give consideration to allowing the members to split their 10-minute time slots into five-minute speeches. Would that be acceptable to the House?

Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent to have five-minute speeches?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-226, an act to reduce automotive pollution. I would like to indicate that I have a variety of concerns about the bill.
MMT, the manganese-based gasoline additive, was first introduced in Canada in 1977. It was introduced into Canadian gasoline in 1978 and has been in continuous use since that time.
MMT is manufactured by the Ethyl Corporation of Canada which also distributes and sells the product to refineries in Canada. Ethyl has 170 employees located in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton.
I rise today to present Ethyl's concerns and interests. There are always two sides to a story. I would like to focus my remarks on three areas: concerns about MMT and health; MMT and the United States situation where the company made an application; and ethanol and MMT.
My friend and colleague from Lambton-Middlesex has raised concerns about the issue of MMT and health. Members of this House will be interested to know that like many natural substances, manganese can have a harmful effect if consumed or inhaled in large quantities. However, to produce adverse effects the exposure must be chronic. The level of airborne manganese also must be in excess of 1,000 micrograms per cubic meter.
All members of this House will know that many organizations have established exposure guidelines to ensure human safety, including the World Health Organization and the province of Ontario.
Ethyl's research has demonstrated that MMT use in gasoline will result in a maximum of approximately 0.02 micrograms per cubic metre, which is insignificant in terms of air quality and health concerns. This is 50 times less than the lowest standard listed by health organizations as safe. The World Health Organization lists one microgram per cubic metre as being safe. So the tests show that it is 50 times less than that.
At the same time, Ethyl Corporation has undertaken extensive research in this area to add to the scientific understanding of the way manganese affects human health. In 1985 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency studied airborne manganese levels. The levels studied were approximately 10,000 times higher than the level that results from the use of the additive which is, as I noted earlier, 0.017 or as I used, 0.02 micrograms per cubic metre at the most.
The EPA determined that even at the level studied, which was of course 10,000 times higher showed, according to their statement as "caused or contributed to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to result in an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness". Certainly they have indicated that even 10,000 times higher would not be a health concern.
Ross Associates, a group of respected toxicologists, conducted a comprehensive literature search on the health effects of manganese. Ross' literature search determined that "the anticipated increase of manganese in the environment from the use of MMT is sufficiently small in comparison to the natural levels of this element and human intake of it that the body's ability to maintain consistent manganese levels should be unaffected. Indeed, manganese is necessary for proper functioning of the human body; thus, no effect on health would be anticipated".
Let me turn to MMT and the United States situation, which my colleague brought up. Much attention has been directed to Ethyl Corporation's application to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for permission to use MMT in unleaded gasoline. This request was based on a comprehensive series of tests to scientifically evaluate and document the effect of MMT on automobile tailpipe emissions and air quality.
The members of this House may find it interesting that these tests show conclusively that the additive does not harm the catalyst and, in fact, significantly reduces pollutants, especially nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. In fact, nitrogen oxide emissions are reduced by 20 per cent and carbon monoxide emissions by 7 per cent, with no practical effect on hydrocarbon emissions. Overall tailpipe emissions are reduced by 8 per cent.

Ethyl's testing program also showed that the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline will not adversely affect the ambient air concentration of manganese.
A study done for the company by Stanley Industrial Consultants Limited of Calgary went on to say, in summary: "This study examined changes in air emission patterns in the event that the use of the octane-enhancing additive MMT in Canadian gasoline is eliminated". The tests say: "The Fleet Test Program results indicate significant decreases in nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide emissions and a slight increase in volatile organic substance emissions due to the presence of MMT".
The study also went on to say they estimate "that benzene in vehicle emissions will increase in the order of 5 to 10 per cent due to the increased aromatic content of gasolines without MMT".
The ability to use MMT in Canadian gasolines is of major importance to Canadian refiners and the driving public. If MMT is eliminated, nitrogen oxide emissions will increase. The addition of nitrogen oxide emissions will be approximately equivalent to an extra 500,000 vehicles on Canadian roadways in 1995 and 1.3 million additional vehicles in the year 2000.
Without MMT, Canadian refinery crude demands will increase by approximately 6,500 barrels per day, equivalent to $60 million a year in 1995, assuming crude is selling at $25.50 a barrel.
Capital needs of great consequence will be required by our refineries. It would affect the refinery in Sarnia. Esso is in a difficult productive mode at this time so it could have a serious effect. Some companies would need to spend millions of dollars of investment.
If MMT is eliminated from Canadian gasolines there will be increased emissions of nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, sodium dioxide and volatile organic substances, all of concern.
It is important to put on the record that Ethyl does not oppose the increased use of ethanol as a blended agent in gasoline. It clearly can reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons but members will know that ethanol does not have the same attributes as MMT and
Private Members' Business
is mistakenly represented as an alternative to this additive.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate today on behalf of Ethyl Canada and its workers. In the interests of the public present studies should be examined as we evaluate this bill as presented by my colleague from Sarnia-Lambton.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, before getting into the main body of my remarks, I would like to note that the speaker who just finished at one point stated that a series of effects would follow from a positive series of assumptions, one of which was a $25.50 per barrel price for Canadian crude oil.
I must say that I desperately hope God is listening today and will take that suggestion to heart and effect it because I can tell you $25.50 for a barrel of oil would be welcome news in Alberta. I suppose that is beside the point of the discussion here today.
Mrs. Sparrow. How about Canadian dollars.


Ross Harvey: We even take Canadian dollars, $25.50.
Mrs. Sparrow. You want U.S.


Ross Harvey: Yes, that would be great. $25.50 U.S. would be wonderful, but $25.50 Canadian at this point would be really great too.
In general I must say that we in the New Democratic Party are in agreement with the notion underlying the bill, which is that of replacing hazardous additives in gasoline with less hazardous and much more environmentally friendly additives that can achieve much the same result.
Again, referring back to the member who just spoke, he enumerated a number of very nasty things that would happen were MMT to be removed from gasoline, but the majority of effects in that list are predicated on the assumption that no replacement would be placed in that gasoline that would have equivalent or similar effects.
Whereas it is true that MMT mitigates several environmentally unfriendly elements of gasoline at the moment, that mitigation can be achieved as well in most instances by other additives, including biomass derived ethanol which is what I want to concentrate on today.

June 15, 1992
Private Members' Business
I should note as well that we acknowledge the effort of the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex in encouraging the greater use of ethanol. We agree whole-heartedly that the greater use of biomass derived ethanol could expand Canada's domestic market for grains.
In fact, testimony last year before the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources indicated that a 10 per cent blend of ethanol, which is to say 10 per cent ethanol to 90 per cent gasoline, would require 3.45 billion litres of ethanol annually and would consume 9 to 10 million tonnes of grain annually. Canada's annual production of principal grains now totals between 50 and 60 million tonnes. Therefore, ethanol production, were it to reach the 10 per cent blend level in all gasoline sold in Canada, would require the equivalent of slightly less than 20 per cent of the entire Canadian annual grain harvest at present. That would be a real boon for grain producers.
I would also note that we agree with the hon. member's contention that ethanol use should be stimulated because this would be good for the environment. That is clearly the case. It is the case not just because of its additive qualities but because biomass generated ethanol is derived using carbon that is already in our biosphere and to the degree it is used it backs out carbon that is dredged up from the lithosphere and added as new carbon to the biosphere. Therefore, for every litre of ethanol you use in preference to a litre of gasoline, you have stopped the introduction of that new equivalent amount of carbon into our biosphere. That is the principal environmentally sound attribute of ethanol in our contention and one that ought always to be borne in mind when we consider the question of ethanol use.
Unfortunately, if passed in its current form, this bill would only achieve part of what it sets out to accomplish. The bill would succeed in banning methylcyclopentadie-nyl manganese tricarbonyl, or MMT, a manganese-containing compound for which there are legitimate health concerns despite the submission of the previous speaker, but it would not ban other hazardous compounds like the aromatics toluene, benzene and the family of xylenes. These are veiy worrisome elements in current gasoline and are left unaddressed by the bill. However, again, it would ban the methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl.
The bill's biggest failing, however, is that it would not succeed in encouraging the greater use of ethanol derived from agricultural products and byproducts or from wood waste. By stipulating that no gasoline sold in Canada, and I quote from the bill "has an oxygen content of less than 3.2 per cent by weight", the bill would allow the use, not just of ethanol, but as well of MTBE or methyl tertiary butyl ether and ETBE, ethyl tertiary butyl ether.
MTBE is a petroleum-based product. It does not stimulate domestic markets for grain. It does not result in reduced C02 emissions. But, because it is produced by the oil industry and because it is easily shipped through pipelines, MTBE is the additive of choice for that industry which is why, for example, a large new methyl tertiary butyl ether plant was recently built in Edmonton. The bill would essentially result in the replacement of MMT with MTBE, not with ethanol.
As for the use of ETBE, the bill does not stipulate that ETBE, although derived from ethanol, be derived from ethanol produced from grain or wood. The same with ethanol itself. Therefore, the same problem could arise in that you would be using lithospheric carbons to generate this new additive rather than using the biospheric carbons we have available.
However, the bill in its principle is a commendable one. Its elements can be individually addressed and repaired in committee. Therefore, the New Democrat caucus will be supporting this bill at second reading and attempting to get it into committee where what we submit are salutary changes could be made.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today and speak in full and complete support of the private member's bill by my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex. It is not very often that a private bill of such merit and importance gets called for debate in the House. This bill is well-researched, well-intentioned and totally worthy of support. However, I would expect nothing less from the member whose riding borders mine in southwestern Ontario.
This bill would require all gasoline sold in Canada to have a minimum oxygen content of 3.2 per cent. That is consistent with the original draft of the U.S. Clean Air Act of 1988.
June 15, 1992

Hundreds of my own constituents have signed petitions calling on the government for more action on ethanol with a legislated blend. Indeed, this comes on the heels of a meeting in my riding on March 23, attended by over 350 people. It was sponsored by the Kent Federation of Agriculture and the Chatham and District Chamber of Commerce and chaired by Stephen McGrail, president of the Kent Com Producers Association.
We all met to determine the possibilities of locating an ethanol industry in Kent county. It makes both economic and environmental sense, since my riding is the number one com producer in all of Canada. It is the fuel of the future while creating other markets for our grains and helping the local economy.
Environmentally friendly green gas was pumped for the first time in Ontario last month in Chatham in my riding of Kent.
Frank Anthony, president of the Ontario Com Producers Association, said that the move to ethanol at UCO's 21 Ontario stations will generate about $57 million dollars from 22.5 million bushels of com in the province.
My riding alone has over 5,000 com producers. Industry predictions indicate that 20 per cent of the Ontario corn production, some 200 million bushels, will go into the making of ethanol.
In 1990, Ontario drivers used over 12 billion litres of gasoline not including gasoline for aviation, marine, farming, construction, transportation or other off-road transportation. That accounts for over one-third of the 31.8 billion litres of gas used across the country. With that ethanol represents a lucrative market. While it cannot be used alone in conventional engines, when one part of ethanol is mixed with nine parts of gasoline, it becomes a viable alternative.
In the United States, 375 million bushels of com annually are distilled into fuel ethanol. That could grow to one billion bushels within the next seven years. The market is there so we now have to meet the demand.
Due to the clean burning and renewable nature, ethanol fuel blends were recently awarded the eco logo
Private Members' Business
by Environment Canada. This is the first time any transportation fuel was ever granted the logo.
This private members' bill is important both to help the environment and our agricultural economy. Plagued with drought, low commodity prices and rising costs, farmers have taken a battering in recent years. The situation has become so bad that there have been predictions that the family farm will disappear within the next generation.
The Chatham ethanol consortium is showing the type of forward thinking attitude needed as it conducts a feasibility study on whether or not a plant can be located in the city.
My colleagues will speak more about the dangers of MMT. My friend from Lambton-Middlesex has spoken out often and strongly for the banning of this deadly additive.
It is useful to point out that the Leader of the Opposition is the first federal party leader to support the use of ethanol and abandon the use of MMT in Canada.
We have consistently shown leadership on this issue by developing the policies for the future. Indeed, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Environment when in 1990 we released a report calling on the government to introduce a major research development and demonstration program to reduce greenhouse gases. This has already been done for ethanol. It is something positive that we can do right here in our own backyard to reduce global warming and thinning of the ozone layer.
I congratulate the member for Lambton-Middlesex for his fortitude and determination in sticking with this proposal, for developing this important private members' bill and for his leadership on this issue.
This bill is worthy of support by members on all sides of this House. Environment and agriculture need this type of initiative and Canadians are demanding concrete action. I am proud to support this bill and the efforts of my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have five minutes to speak in support of this bill, Bill C-226, a private members' bill proposed by my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex. There are so many winners in this particular bill that I just cannot imagine why the entire House would not get behind it.

June 15, 1992
Private Members' Business
I will not go into all of the benefits that would accrue to the agricultural industry in this country. I will not go into all of the benefits in terms of new job creation that would result because of the fact that it is a new industry that would result with a commitment to this fuel. I would like to focus on the reduction of C02s.
You have to understand that in a city like Toronto we probably have 50 to 60 per cent of the entire C02 emissions of this entire country. If you fly into Toronto on a day like today, you can see the smog hovering over the city. If you ever have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to visit Toronto you will just be amazed at the Don Valley Parkway, the 401 highway, east and west, the Trans-Canada Highway and our Gardiner Expressway to the south. For at least five hours of every day these major thoroughfares are like parking lots. The health hazard that exists because of the emissions that are coming from the automobiles right now in the city of Toronto are unquestionably a danger to the health of that community.
In fact, in 1986 when there were air quality monitoring stations in Toronto, during an eight-hour maximum period that they were monitoring the air quality, at that time just at Yonge Street in downtown Toronto there were over 10 different times that the levels had exceeded the recommended amount by over seven times. This was in 1986. The situation is worse right now.
A member of Parliament has put forward a private members' bill which is going to reduce this toxic emission, and that is what it is. Doctors from all over the world are saying that this MMT is showing health effects that are certainly hazardous. I listened to the member for Samia-Lambton who had a different point of view. I cannot imagine all of these doctors from all around the world putting forward their position unless there was some scientific and substantive basis to their concern. I do not really see how we cannot get behind this bill.
From a member representing an urban area of close to
2.5	million people where we are just a step away form wearing masks in that city, those of us who are responsible for urban areas plead with this House for support. Anything that would reduce the toxic emissions into our community is something that we hope all members from all regions of this House would get behind.
For this particular fuel there is scientific information that shows that this ethanol fuel reduces these toxic emissions by close to 60 per cent and so we are pleading for support of this bill.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to this motion which was brought forward by the hon. member opposite. The issue under discussion here today is whether we might by requiring some change in the way gasoline is produced in Canada create some benefits for the citizens of Canada in the form of a cleaner or a healthier environment.
The changes proposed in Bill C-226 would require the elimination of the anti-knock additive MMT and the addition of a fuel oxygenate, likely ethanol.
The United States has recently completed a thorough review of the potential for various changes to gasoline quality to address a variety of environmental concerns in several parts of that country. This process included extensive consultation with concerned parties, environmental groups, health authorities, vehicle manufacturers, fuel producers. The outcome, the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, represents the consensus of all these parties about which gasoline specifications will improve the local air quality.
However, since different parts of the United States have different environmental problems, it is not surprising there are several so-called reformulated gasolines with the properties of an individual fuel being set to address most effectively the environmental concerns of the specific region where it will be sold.
Under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, gasoline sold in winter months in the 44 cities which exceed carbon monoxide standards must contain at least 2 per cent oxygen, rising to 2.7 per cent in 1992.
In addition, reformulated gasoline must be used in the 10 areas most severely exceeding the desired ozone levels beginning in 1995. This gasoline must have a 2 per cent oxygen content year round. Ethanol and MTBE, an ether produced from methanol and butane, can both be used to meet this requirement. The demand for ethanol and MTBE.are therefore expected to increase in the U.S.
June 15, 1992

The Clean Air Act regulations also provided for a waiver to allow fuel blends containing 10 per cent ethanol to exceed the standard for Reid vapour pressure by one pound per square inch. This higher vapour pressure however increases the fuel's tendency to emit hydrocarbon vapours and so the state of New Jersey, which is veiy concerned about local smog problems caused by high ozone levels, is currently refusing to allow alcohol fuel blends to exceed the normal vapour pressure. The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed regulations on reformulated gasoline released on April 16, 1992 do not provide a waiver for RVP.
That may have a number of effects such as giving preference to MTBE and affecting planned ethanol production expansion. Already the largest producer in the U.S., Archer, Daniels and Midland has cancelled a planned ethanol production expansion. It may require that petroleum producers provide a special tailored, in other words a lower RVP base gasoline for blending with ethanol. Various options to reach a compromise on standards for oxygenates in gasoline are yet being discussed in the U.S.
Canada too has its gasoline reformulation agenda. Government officials are reviewing the extensive information coming out of the U.S. process to determine how it applies to Canada's situation. They are beginning to consult with the many parties who will be affected by any decision to change gasoline specifications. They are beginning a dialogue with vehicle and fuel manufacturers in Canada to discover what changes are possible in Canada, what their effect on air quality might be, and what will be the likely cost to Canadians. Provincial governments, which largely have jurisdiction over fuel specifications, will have to be actively involved in this process.
Four years ago the concerted efforts of the government resulted in the most powerful piece of environmental legislation in the history of this country. Proclaimed as an act of Parliament on June 30, 1988, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act gave the government the legislative power to address the kind of issues raised in Bill C-226 in a rigorous and comprehensive way.
Private Members' Business
Sections 46 and 47 of the CEPA provided a comprehensive regulatory framework to prohibit the production or importation for the use or sale of any fuel that contains an element, component or additive in a concentration or quantity that exceeds the concentration or quantity prescribed with respect to that element, component or additive in relation to the fuel when in the opinion of the Governor in Council the combustion of the fuel would result in a significant contribution to air pollution.
This government went much further than that. In May 1989 the Ministers of the Environment and Transport announced a five-year plan to reduce emissions from internal combustion engines.
In 1990 the green plan reinforced several pollution issues such as smog, toxins and climate changes to name only a few which will result in several strategies to achieve the objective of a clean and healthy environment in a sound and prosperous economy for future generations of Canadians.
Energy, Mines and Resources; Environment Canada; Transport Canada; Industry, Science and Technology; and Health and Welfare are reviewing all aspects of gasoline formulations. They will workshop the complex subject of gasoline formulations with representatives from provincial ministries, consumer environmental groups, members of the petroleum industry, the motor vehicle industry, and consultants in the near future.
The cost of fuel quality changes to improve the environment will likely be high. A forecast of the capital expenditures required for refining and marketing by the industry to the year 2000 has been estimated at between $12 billion to $31 billion depending on what changes will be required. This estimate includes ongoing capital expenditures, low sulphur diesel, reformulated gasoline, stationary source emission control, and other refinery modifications for environmental controls.
Members of the House should be reminded that there is already in place a comprehensive review and consultation process as well as a regulatory framework to assist the linkages between gasoline components and air pollution. These comprehensive technical and social economic reviews will provide facts to assist government in addressing the need to make changes to existing gasoline

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
formulations to respond to environmental issues and concerns.
I doubt at this time that there has been sufficient data on the use of oxygenates in motor vehicle fuels and the effect on air quality in the Canadian urban areas.
Therefore I would make the point that I cannot support Bill C-225, given its restrictive nature and its failure to address a number of important factors which impact on the entire issue of automotive fuels and air pollution.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of privilege to stand in the House today to give full support to this bill which I believe is a bill of common sense, a bill that is bringing the pollution question forward and giving a reasonable way to bring a solution to something which has become a major problem not only in this country but world-wide.
We all watched very much with interest at what was happening in Brazil with the environmental talks. I heard the minister for this country state: "We are entering a new era of environmental development". I believe it is the responsibility of this government to enter that era along with the minister if the minister is heading in that direction. However I do not see a move when I hear statements from the ministry or getting close to the ministry: "We do not have enough information". I believe that is wrong.
The information is there from a multitude of sources, information enough that could fill this room with environmental problems from auto emissions and other types of emissions in this world.
Before I continue though I want to offer my congratulations to my colleague, the member for Lambton- Middlesex. He has taken it upon himself to put together a tremendous background of research information and possibly that backgroung of research information should be pushed on to our government if it does not see research is there.
I really have a strong question about the availability of research. It is not because it has not been done, but if I understand that the United States has banned a product since 1977, the research must clearly show that this product is not acceptable to the majority of North
Americans. Certainly the track record of the United States has not been up front and first in the race to clear up environmental problems. When it has taken the initiative to ban MMT, we must be aware that there are negatives and there is proof. We have to stop that type of emission occurring.
The product itself is causing, as my colleague earlier stated, a manganese problem which becomes accumulative and may cause a tremendous amount of neurological damage to young, old and all people alike.
It is important to understand then that there are great volumes of information which tell us that MMT is not an acceptable product to be used in our country. Canadian emission testing does not use MMT. That seems to be a fraud in itself. When we do not see the product itself being used in the testing that we are sending out results on, there must be a major reason for concern. In that case I would question the whole process of testing itself.
It must be remembered that our goal is a goal of a cleaner atmosphere, a goal of a better environment for people to live in. Certainly MMT is not the only product we are talking about within this bill. We are also suggesting that we raise the oxygen content of our fuels up to a percentage of 3.2 by weight. That would-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-51, an act respecting water resources in the Northwest Territories, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are nine motions in amendment to Bill C-51, an act respecting water resources in the Northwest Territories, on the Notice Paper for the report stage.

Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq, is identical to Motion No. 1 and will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, will be grouped for the purposes of debate and voted on as follows: the vote on Motion No. 3 will apply to Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9; Motion No. 4 will be voted on separately.

Motion No. 8, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, appears to be amending the Northern Canada Power Commission Act which is not before the House in Bill C-51. Accordingly I must rule Motion No. 8 out of order pursuant to Beachesne's citation 698 at paragraph (8)(a).


MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 1 and the heading preceding line 1 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"Application
5. (1) In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any land claim agreements affecting the Northwest Territories, concluded between aboriginal peoples of Canada and Her Majesty, the provisions of the land claim agreements prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
(2) Nothing in this Act, the regulations or".
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this morning to rise in the House to debate Bill C-51, an act
Government Orders
respecting water resources in the Northwest Territories. There will be a bit of confusion today as we get into these two bills because Bill C-51 and Bill C-52 are so similar. Those who are watching us at home will have to watch very carefully because they are tied together and what we are doing is simply taking one bill and splitting it into two bills. There will be some very technical amendments, as people at home will notice, that we are talking about which in essence will make the new bill more consistent with the old bill.
I want to talk for a moment about Motion No. 1 and of course Motion No. 2 which was the identical one submitted by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq. I want to read it for the folks. It relates to the application of this particular bill to ongoing land claims in the Northwest Territories under Bill C-51 and also under Bill C-52 in Yukon.
It states:
In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this act and the provisions of any land claim agreements affecting the Northwest 'Iferritories, concluded between aboriginal peoples of Canada and Her Majesty, the provisions of the land claim agreements prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
I am aware, after discussions with the government, that it will not be accepting our amendment. I tend to think this is a grave mistake for the simple reason that in committee, as we discussed this, we became aware that this legislation, Bill C-51 as well as Bill C-52, would have to be amended on a fairly regular basis because of the inconsistencies in it as it relates to the land claim settlements that are ongoing and, of course, those that have already been accepted. I use the Gwich'in land claim as an example of that.
I want to inform the House that the Northwest Territories Water Board calls the Northwest Territories water bill an interim measure because the inconsistencies in it in relation to the land claims are so glaring and so obvious.
I want to quote the minister, who is here today, as to the relation between land claims and these bills. The minister has agreed there are going to be some problems with this particular situation. He agrees the land claims will have to take precedence over the bills we are debating today.

Government Orders
I want to quote the minister in his press release of December 12, 1991 when he introduced the bills in this House:
Aboriginal rights and management roles concerning water resources may be defined and set out in future comprehensive claim settlement legislation. Where there is any inconsistency between these acts and future claim settlement legislation, the latter will prevail.
That is exactly the intention of the motion before us today, to show the inconsistencies and the glaring differences between what the land claim negotiations will give aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories and the legislation itself in this particular bill and the powers under it.
What I am suggesting is not something that is earth shattering. Basically what I am asking the government to do is acknowledge the fact we will have to revisit these particular bills as land claims go through the system and are negotiated and approved in the Northwest Territories.
In Yukon that may not be as difficult because there is only one group involved in negotiations in that particular area, but if we take a look at all the different aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories, as many as five or six different negotiations may be undertaken over a period of a few years and we will be continually revisiting this legislation.
It is imperative that governments at all levels be very straightforward and frank with those who are involved in these licensing processes in those jurisdictions, that they understand there is going to be some revisiting of these particular bills in the future. It will not have to be a process of word of mouth to particular groups be it either the mining companies or individual user groups. They will understand there are land claim negotiations going on and they, as individuals who are concerned or interested in doing business in the Northwest Territories will be apprised of all changes as they go through because we have recognized that is a necessity in the bill.
What we did ask for in committee, what we suggested to the government and to the minister through discussions with his staff and with the parliamentary secretary, is that this particular legislation should be delayed somewhat in order for the Council of Yukon Indians, who wanted to make a further presentation to the different groups in the Northwest Territories, to have more input into this particular legislation.
It seems to me that this has been going on, and the government will say so when it has an opportunity, since 1988. It needs these technical changes in order to get on with a more modem process of dealing with water and the environment in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
I would ask the government to consider our amendment simply because it is more straightforward. It deals with the most important aspect of the issues that are ongoing in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and that is the land claims process that we hear so much about and so often in this place.
If we as parliamentarians can acknowledge the fact that this is an interim measure and that applicants for licences in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon are aware of it, then they will deal with their business accordingly. This is the most appropriate way to govern and to do business in this place and indeed all across Canada.
I think I have presented our concerns as a party in relation to Motions Nos. 1 and 2. We feel it would be to the government's benefit to consider looking at this in detail in order not to make it any more confusing than it already is for those who have been trying to follow these two bills in the last few years. Because of the processes that are going on in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, they can expect these bills to be revisited on a regular basis as time goes on.
I ask the government again to consider accepting this amendment as it is a very legitimate amendment considering the facts that I have outlined today.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to play a role in this important debate on Bills C-51 and C-52, when we come to those amendments momentarily.
At this point I want to respond to the amendments just put forward and explained by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. He would have provided in Motion No. 1 for an amendment to clause 5(1) suggesting that in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of the proposed amendment to Bill C-51, and the provisions of any land claim agreement affecting the Northwest Territories that the provisions of the land
June 15, 1992

claim agreement prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
I certainly understand the spirit of the hon. member's proposal and that also put forward as Motion No. 2 by the member for Nunatsiaq. As the land claim agreements are being negotiated both in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, it is anticipated that certain of the existing laws of general application will be affected, as will policies and regulations flowing from that legislation at the time.
When the land claim settlement legislation and selfgovernment legislation is presented to Parliament, if there is then any overriding or paramount effect caused by the legislation which establishes the legal basis for the land claim agreements, then the question of paramount-cy will be determined at that time.
At present there are four northern land claims agreements under negotiation. All of these agreements could affect many federal statutes, not merely Bills C-51 and C-52. But the paramountcy of those agreements is not necessarily an unqualified general right; it will be determined in a way which also respects certain of the overriding laws of Canada. Therefore, when the land claim agreements are finalized, they will be implemented through settlement legislation brought before this House and debated in this Chamber.
The individual agreements will set out the matters which these settlement acts must address and the manner in which inconsistencies or conflicts with federal legislation shall be dealt with. Legal working groups within the claims negotiation process will develop the necessary consequential amendments to federal legislation.
Therefore, I would submit that the inclusion of a general amendment such as the one advocated by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River would constitute a precedent in that it would anticipate the conclusion of negotiations, the ratification by aboriginal groups and the governments affected, of the provisions of those settlement acts. If one were to make an anticipatory amendment of this nature it invites the question: Why not amend all federal statutes that will ultimately be affected by claims negotiations?
To come to the point, the inclusion of such a provision now would pre-judge the manner of implementing future land claim agreements and the specific develop-
Govemment Orders
ment of legislation which enshrines the principle of paramountcy in those jurisdictions which will be affected when that legislation is brought before the House.
So the government at this time, while understanding the spirit and the intention of the proposal made by the hon. member, is not able to support the amendment at this time.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, my constituency of Prince Albert-Churchill River has a fair amount of water that flows into the Mackenzie River system through Lake Athabasca and the Athabasca River system.
I would like to rise in support of Motion No. 1 which states that in the event of any inconsistency' between the provisions of this act and the provisions of any land claim agreements affecting the Northwest Territories concluded between aboriginal peoples of Canada and Her Majesty, the provisions of the land claim agreements prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
That is an excellent amendment to be proposing at this time. We have just heard the minister indicate his rationale for not accepting that particular provision, but I really think that he has in many ways side-stepped the question.
First of all, he says that paramountcy as envisioned here is not necessarily binding or unqualified in all areas. This contradicts a quotation of the minister, contained in a press release which he sent out on December 12 which says that "aboriginal rights and management roles concerning water resources may be defined and set out in future comprehensive claims settlement legislation". The press release continued: "Where there is any inconsistency' between these acts and future land claims legislation, the latter will prevail". Those were the words of the minister at the time.
As I understand the amendment before us, it intends to include that thought, those words virtually, in the legislation before us. It seems to me when the minister issues a press release to the nation arguing that if there are any inconsistencies, that the land claim settlement will be paramount, that the latter will prevail, in his precise words, and now he argues that it is not necessarily the case, that kind of inconsistency really starts to undermine the good faith that has to underlie these negotiations.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
I have some experience with these negotiations with constituents of my own. The Dene people of northern Saskatchewan, as well as those in northern Manitoba, have been very frustrated in dealing with this ministry and, with all due respect, with this minister regarding their traditional uses of the territories. There has not been, in many cases, an atmosphere of goodwill surrounding these talks.
For the minister to argue that while there may be inconsistencies and the negotiated land settlements may not prevail, and that is essentially what he is arguing, really serves to undermine the goodwill that needs to underlie these negotiations.
Also, the minister said this was anticipatory of what may happen and that if we were to make these kinds of amendments, then we should make amendments to all other legislation which the land claims negotiations might affect in the future.
In some ways it is a bit of a specious argument and I guess he needed to also round out his remarks. The fact is this is the legislation before us and the other bills are not before us. Therefore, it is not particularly germane to suggest that we would get into all of those at the same time. However, if we are to demonstrate our good faith in these ongoing negotiations at this critical time in history, as they do come up it is very important that they become recognized before the House.
It is important for the aboriginal people and all other people in this country to know that Parliament is taking seriously the general trend in constitutional negotiations toward self-government, the trend in the courts toward interpretation of aboriginal rights which very liberally interpret the right to traditional hunting, fishing and gathering rights and other trends in our society. It is incumbent upon Parliament not only to recognize those but, in fact, to show some leadership which we could do by accepting this particular amendment.
As well, I would like to make reference to the fact that the issue of water is a very substantial part of the negotiations which are under way with respect to claims agreements in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
I note in testimony by the Council for Yukon Indians on April 28, 1992 before the committee studying this legislation that about 12 pages in the umbrella agreement initialled in November are devoted to water management. It is a very critical aspect of that whole agreement. In that chapter it does something very important in establishing a new use not recognized in the Yukon Waters Act, the traditional use for Yukon Indian persons for purposes of trapping, non-commercial harvesting, transportation, traditional heritage, culture and spiritual purposes. This is a traditional use that is very much a part of the negotiations that are under way. In fact, it is something that the federal government has already initialled.
My understanding is that this particular legislation before us does not even make reference to this new and very important right for native people and important use as far as regulating waters are concerned that will come into being with the finalization of these agreements.
I do not blame the people of the north, particularly the Dene and the Yukon Indians, for feeling that if we proceed with this legislation without recognition of this important new use which is a part of all the new negotiations at a time when we are negotiating self-government agreements and other agreements that will fundamentally change the jurisdictional relationship between native peoples and the Government of Canada and if we proceed without recognition in this legislation through the amendment that has been proposed, we are going to fall behind the course of history and might well be creating difficulties down the road as we proceed with these negotiations.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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

June 15, 1992


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are grouped together for debate.


Robert Daniel Nault: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion on Motion No. 8. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
That Bill C-51 be amended by adding immediately after line 9 at page 30 the following new clause:


Robert Daniel Nault: moved:

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-51 be amended by adding immediately after line 9 at
page 30 the following new clause:
"Consequential Amendment
Northern Canada Power Commission (share issuance and sale authorization) Act
"46. (1) Section 12 of the Northern Canada Power Commission (share issuance and sale authorization) Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
12. The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, make an order exempting the Corporation as continued pursuant to section 10 from the requirement to pay fees for the right to use waters or deposit waste pursuant to a licence under the Northwest Territories Waters Act.
(2) An order made under section 12 of the Northern Canada Power Commission (share issuance and sale authorization) Act before the coming into force of this Act continues in force as if it had been made under that section as amended by this Act."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, debate.


Robert Daniel Nault: And No. 8, Mr. Speaker. I will talk about that at the same time. Let me again talk about these motions all in one lump and try and put them in a context that would be easily explainable to our folks back home and of course to the members who have not been following these bills as closely as they could.
First of all, we understand the difficulties that the Table had with Motion No. 8. We are aware that it does go somewhat outside of the legislation. What we had intended on doing with Motion No. 8 was merely to lift clause 50 which is in the Yukon Waters Act and transfer it into the Northwest Territories Waters Act. This is a clause that deals with the Northern Canada Power Commission in the Northwest Territories. What we are attempting to do in a technical sense, in the hope of reducing confusion, is take a particular clause out of the Yukon bill that deals with the Northwest Territories and deals with the Northern Canada Power Commission, which is in the Northwest Territories, and put it into the legislation that we are now talking about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but we checked on Motion No. 8 and it is possible to group that motion with the other motions. Debate is on all motions, including Motion No. 8.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, as I said the first time I rose, I felt that it was going to be an interesting day because of how things were structured here. Of course, we are seeing that.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the NDP and the government for giving us unanimous consent to put this motion on the floor of the House of Commons because it is a very appropriate one. It is more of a technical one. Again, it is one that we are trying to deal with to reduce the confusion that is within the original bill.
When we divide the bill into two separate bills, of course, we would like to remove clause 50 out of the Yukon Waters Act and put it in the Northwest Territories Waters Act because the Northern Canada Power Commission deals specifically with the Northwest Territories.
I will go back to all the motions to try to explain the technical aspects of these particular motions in order to put some semblance of understanding before the House.
The motions are technical amendments which respond to concerns expressed more so by the Northwest Territories Water Board than anyone. In fact, Motions Nos. 3 through 9 are all transitional amendments which have been, if I can be so bold, accepted by the government and the opposition as amendments that would be accepted because of their technical nature.
The transitional provisions which are the bridge between the current Northern Inland Waters Act and the new Yukon and Northwest Territories water bills are all contained in the Yukon bill.
It is somewhat baffling to come across references to the Northwest Territories in the Yukon Act. It is equally disconcerting to read the Northwest Territories water bill as it currently stands and see no reference whatsoever to any transitional provisions.
When the Northwest Territories Water Board appeared before the legislative committee in April, this issue was raised. I will quote from the remarks made by the chairman of the Northwest Territories Water Board on this matter: "If a licensee picked up a copy of Bill C-51, he would not know whether his licences were going to lapse when this comes into effect, or what was going to happen to him. He would not know who to
June 15, 1992

phone or whether the old board was going to be in business after the new act came into place".
"We found afterwards that these transitional provisions had been put into Bill C-52 so you could either address this concern by putting the same or similar transitional provisions into Bill C-51 or alternatively, writing to every licensee and doing a public relations campaign to make sure they know where that information is available".
As you can see, there is a lot of confusion as to how things will apply once we split one bill into two. What is suggested by these technical amendments is to remove references to the Northwest Territories from the Yukon bill and to put the transitional provisions of one bill into another bill. I hope that does not confuse anyone, because it sometimes confuses me.
Clause 45 of the Yukon Waters Act, for example, says that persons who were members of the Yukon Territory Water Board or the Northwest Territories Water Board before the coming into force of this act continue as such thereafter.
Motion No. 3 creates a similar clause 45 for the Northwest Territories Waters Act. We have in this case struck out the reference to the Northwest Territories Water Board in the Yukon bill and put it as a new clause 45 in the Northwest Territories bill.
In essence, to make a long story short, these technical amendments are basically the process of removing references of one particular area in one bill that do not relate to that particular area.
Of course, Motion No. 8 on which we just got unanimous consent was somewhat different in that it dealt with the Northern Canada Power Commission as it relates to the Northwest Territories and, for the sake of removing confusion, we are hoping to take that particular clause when we get into discussion of Bill C-52 out of that particular bill completely and put it into the Northwest Territories Waters Act.
That explanation is as concise as I can give in the short time I have to explain the technical amendments. It is my understanding, and I hope it is correct, that the government accepts those amendments. It is also my understanding that the New Democratic Party accepts those
Government Orders
amendments. Basically they are ones to clarify the two different bills as they were lumped together in one bill.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the government is prepared to accept the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River to Bill C-51, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
I certainly understand the confusion as it has been described by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River which appeared to arise from cross-references in the alternate pieces of legislation when each was to have been a self-standing bill affecting either Yukon or the Northwest Territories water act.
Bill C-51 and Bill C-52 are drafted in such a way that they both must come into force at the same time since they will replace one existing statute, the Northern Inland Waters Act. Thus the legislative drafters felt that the transitional provisions need only appear in one of the bills. Bill C-52 was chosen to repeal the existing Northern Inland Waters Act, so it also contains all the transitional provisions for both Yukon and Northwest Territories, hence the confusion.
As the member has pointed out, when the legislative committee was reviewing these bills one of the witnesses, specifically the Northwest Territories Water Board, indicated that some confusion among the affected stakeholders might arise due to the absence of these transitional provisions in Bill C-51.
I want to thank the hon. members for Nunatsiaq and Kenora-Rainy River for their co-operation in putting forth these important amendments. Their adoption will only help to improve and clarify these bills for all the affected stakeholders.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and briefly indicate that on behalf of the New Democratic Party we will also be supporting the motions currently before us. I think it behoves us all to try and make sure that the legislation that we produce in this Chamber be as watertight-I guess that is the proper word-in this particular debate as possible.
Therefore it was important that some of these technical changes be made to ensure that the legislation is clear. I as well would like to thank the members who

Government Orders
have put hard work and effort into making sure that this legislation is as complete as possible.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 3. I would remind hon. members that the vote on Motion No. 3 will apply to Motions Nos. 5,6, 7, 8 and 9.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 4 agreed to.


Thomas Edward Siddon: that the bill as amended be concurred in at report stage, with further amendments.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Thomas Edward Siddon: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-52, an act respecting water resources in the Yukon Territory, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are eight motions in amendment to Bill C-52, an act respecting water resources in the Yukon Territory, on the Notice Paper for the report stage.

Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq, is identical to Motion No. 1 and will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, will be grouped for debate. The vote on Motion No. 3 will apply to Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Motions Nos. 7 and 8 will be voted on separately.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Robert Daniel Nault: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-52 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 7 and the heading preceding line 7 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"Application
5. (1) In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any land claim agreements affecting the Yukon Territory, concluded between aboriginal peoples of Canada and Her Majesty, the provisions of the land claim agreements prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
(2) Nothing in this Act, the regulations or".
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are now debating Bill C-52, which is the Yukon water bill. What we are tiying to achieve with the amendment that I have presented and classified as Motion No. 1 is the same thing I attempted to do in debate under Bill C-51, namely, to put in the legislation a transitional clause regarding inconsistencies between the provisions of this act and the provisions of
June 15, 1992

any land claims agreements affecting the Yukon Territory concluded between the aboriginal people of Canada and Her Majesty. Those land claim agreements will prevail to the extent of the inconsistencies.
I listened very intently to the minister's response and rationale to my amendment under Bill C-51. I find it somehow difficult to understand the approach by the government on this particular amendment. The necessity of being consistent in these particular pieces of legislation related to the land claims negotiations is obviously completely impossible.
Therefore, what is going to be negotiated when there is a land claim may vary depending on the particular group the government is negotiating with. The particular aboriginal group in that area may decide that there are certain provisions necessary in its land claims agreement but which are not necessary to another group. In essence, every particular land claims negotiation will be unique in certain respects.
Therefore, what we are suggesting is during the negotiations that the government will undertake with the four or five different groups during the period of the next few years, and I hope it does not take much longer than that, the government will go into these negotiations with the understanding that the land claims settlements enacted through the negotiations will take precedence over this particular piece of legislation. This is in order that the traditional users of this particular resource in a particular area will have the ability and the jurisdiction to control that piece of land and the waters that flow in and out of that land to the point of giving them the jurisdiction and the wherewithal to deal with the problems that may occur within that boundary.
If the minister suggests that is not necessary, once the land claim is settled we would have to go back to the House to amend these particular pieces of legislation every single time. It seems to me that would be a waste of the House's valuable time and a considerable expense to the Government of Canada. In essence, with a clause like we have suggested what could be done is that there could be a clause put in during the negotiations on the land claims settlement which would give precedence to
Government Orders
the particular aboriginal group that is being negotiated with.
Therefore, the inconsistencies within the bills that are being passed, Bills C-51 and C-52, would no longer play an important role. Aboriginal people in those particular areas would feel comfortable in that these particular pieces of legislation that are being passed today would not trample over their rights in the area of inland waters.
I would have hoped that the minister would see the very common sense rationale to this particular amendment and not look at it as a precedent. We are suggesting that the land claims settlements will take precedence over these particular bills. That in itself may be classified by the government as a precedent.
I would suggest that every land claim settlement that will be done in the future would not take place unless the aboriginal people are assured that they will have some legitimate rights and control over the water resources within their own borders. Therefore, it may seem on the surface to be somewhat of a precedent but in reality the facts are that these land claims will suggest and be put in place with that understanding and belief by the aboriginal people once they are signed.
I was hoping that the minister would look at this as a friendly amendment in order to make things much clearer to the people who live in the Northwest Territories and to the people who live in Yukon. It would be a practical amendment that would put in place a regime of better understanding as to what we as members of Parliament are really trying to achieve by putting this new regime in.
We drafted an amendment on this issue for clause by clause.
First, we were advised before the meeting started that our amendment would be ruled out of order by the chairperson at the particular meeting when we were trying to deal with this in committee. We felt it was important to bring this to the people's attention in Canada, the Northwest Territories and in Yukon because it is going to come back to haunt us down the road. I suggest the new government that will come into this

Government Orders
House after the next election will have to deal with this inconsistency.
In conclusion, Motion No. 1 recognizes that there are inconsistencies between the water bills and the water provisions of soon to be finalized land claims agreements. The inconsistencies have been acknowledged by our own government and the water bills will have to be amended as soon as the claims agreements are finalized.
The government acknowledges that amendments to the water bills will be necessary in order to bring them in line with the claims agreements because the minister has suggested that.
The government is also well aware that aboriginal organizations had requested a delay in the passage of these bills. They preferred to have their claims agreements finalized first so the water provisions of their agreements could be integrated into the proposed new water bills before they were brought into this House.
In this way the water bills would be completely updated. There would be no need to amend the bills subsequently to make them consistent with land claims, as is now the case. The government, however, did not want to wait for the finalization of the claims before bringing the new water management legislation forward.
Members on this side accept the need for a new water management regime in the north. We would have preferred, however, that the government acknowledge in these acts what it is prepared to acknowledge outside these acts, namely, that the bills are inconsistent with what has been negotiated in northern land claims.
Our amendment is a compromise which avoids delaying these bills until land claims are finalized. It is simple and straightforward. It informs everyone of a basic fact on which there is no disagreement. It confirms the minister's position. It clarifies what could be a very confusing situation for northern residents and industry.
Again I suggest to the minister and the government that this is a very friendly amendment. It is meant to make things a little clearer, which we were attempting to do, and it is hoped the government will reconsider because we feel it may cause a lot of confusion, especially in Bill C-51. We may be back in this place every year amending that particular act because of the land claims
settlements that are going to be ongoing and approved in the near future.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the proposed amendment, Motion No. 1 to Bill C-52 and also the companion motion offered by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq, I would like to say to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that I do look upon his amendment as a friendly amendment. There is no question about that.
I understand the spirit in which he is offering this proposal. However, this amendment is premature and it is premature for the reason that, as the hon. member has stated, every land claim negotiation will be unique in certain respects.
I know he has made the case that it would save time later in not having to return to the Northwest Territories and Yukon waters acts to further amend them, but when the settlement legislation is brought before this House, after it has been ratified by a particular first nation, well after a negotiated agreement has been reached, when that settlement legislation is brought into this House the amendments he is concerned about will be but consequential amendments to other pieces of existing federal legislation.
There is no doubt the federal government is committed. I have publicly committed myself to ensuring that in the affected jurisdictions, in the areas which are the settlement areas contained within a land claims agreement, the first nation's laws or the laws of the aboriginal party will prevail according to the terms that are negotiated in each individual case.
In terms of Bill C-52 and the amendment before the House, it is premature to anticipate the nature of those negotiations and the time it might take to include them, notwithstanding the suggestion of the hon. member that we might save time in the future. It is an inappropriate principle to anticipate agreement on a particular land claim until that agreement is reached.
I restate one final time for the record that there is nothing in Bill C-51 or Bill C-52 which prejudices the future implementation of land claims agreements with any of the aboriginal parties north of the 60th parallel. When those agreements are implemented, the settlement acts which will be brought before this Parliament and debated will determine what changes might be made

to laws of general application in order to accommodate the land claims agreements.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a debate on Bill C-52, the Yukon waters act, and particularly Motion No. 1 which states:
In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any land claim agreements affecting the Yukon Territory, concluded between aboriginal peoples of Canada and Her Majesty, the provisions of the land claim agreements prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
This is an excellent motion. I am a little disappointed that the minister twice within the last hour has offered arguments against its adoption. I really cannot understand the basis for his argument. I was impressed on December 12 when he issued a press release from his department saying that aboriginal rights and management roles concerning water resources may be defined and set out in future comprehensive claims settlement legislation. Then he added that where there is any inconsistency between these acts and future claims settlement, the latter will prevail.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I said that here.


Raymond John Funk: The minister adds from across the way that he has made a very strong statement to that effect again. I appreciate that he says those things but that is why I have trouble comprehending why when he is prepared to put it in a press release he is not prepared to put it in this legislation.
The minister is arguing that it anticipates land claims agreements which maybe different from case to case and may be included in specific settlements legislation. That much is true. However, at the same time this amendment anticipates such differences existing between different agreements and says provision of the land claims agreements-plural-prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
Really the wording of the motion is such that it would not make any difference which particular claim would come before us and what the provisions would be. This provision would automatically kick in and be an operative clause.
Government Orders
I really cannot see what the minister's argument is and I see some danger in not pursuing this particular motion and not including it in the legislation.
The legislation before us is very important. It covers probably half the land area of the country. The waters in that vast tract of land are some of the cleanest and least polluted waters in the country that we as Canadians have an absolute stake in preserving and keeping from going the way of much of the water in southern Canada.
This legislation is important to my constituency, which borders on the Northwest Territories. The northern waters systems do not necessarily reflect political boundaries. It would probably be a mistake to wait two, three, four or five years until all these settlements are negotiated. At the same time, it is important to recognize in very practical ways, as well as in symbolic ways, what is happening in these negotiations.
The Council of Yukon Indians made an excellent presentation to the committee in which it said that in the umbrella agreement which was initialled in November between the Yukon Indians and the Government of Canada there are a dozen pages devoted to water management.
It is a very important aspect of that particular umbrella agreement. What happens in there is that it establishes an entirely new use as far as legislation is concerned when it comes to water management. That is the traditional use for the purposes of trapping, non-commercial harvesting, transportation, traditional heritage, cultural and spiritual purposes. This use is guaranteed to Yukon Indian persons without a licence or a fee.
This is what is being anticipated in the land claims negotiation. The courts, in decisions like the Sparrow decision, have made very clear it is part of the fundamental fabric of the country. At the same time, we are at the constitutional table trying to convince the aboriginal peoples of this country, the Metis, the Indian and Inuit people, that we are serious in recognizing what traditionally has been the self-government role which has not been recognized in the Indian Act and other kinds of legislation. We are now saying that is an inherent right, it has always been there. We will finally get around to recognizing this in the Constitution. That is a commitment that has been made not only by the Government of

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
Canada but I believe by at least nine out of the ten provinces and the two territories of this country.
It seems to me that if we are establishing that kind of a jurisdictional context in the country, it really calls into question how serious we are about that kind of rhetoric if we refuse to include in legislation like the Yukon waters act an operative clause that basically indicates that when we are talking about these kinds of changes we are talking in good faith.
Aboriginal people have some reason to be concerned about this. First of all, the consultation process with respect to this bill was somewhat flawed. We were assured earlier on when this legislation was introduced and scheduled for quick passage that all the interested parties had been consulted and basically went along with this legislation. When the committee checked around with those people, the interested groups in Yukon and the Northwest Territories, it turned out those people had not felt they had been consulted at all and that if they had been consulted they certainly had not been listened to.
That is a bit of a pattern, unfortunately, with some of the people who consulted on behalf of the present minister and previous ministers. Certainly in my experience with issues like post-secondary education, Oka, and most particularly with the Nunavut settlement with the Inuit people and how it affects the Dene people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, there has been a long string of instances in which negotiations and consultations certainly have not met the expectations of the aboriginal people even though they may have exceeded the expectations of the minister.
As I mentioned, in this case we had again an instance in which people felt they had not been consulted and various groups came forward to make presentations on this legislation. That was as it should have been. There were the Council of Yukon Indians, the Northwest Territories Water Board, the Klondike Placer Miners Association, the Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines and a submission from the Dene Nation.
Central to those presentations was this whole question of what is going to happen with the land claims. On the one hand you have the aboriginal peoples saying that water use, traditional use, is part of their treaties, part of constitutional negotiations, part of the claims negotiations. It is the stated intent of the minister to include
recognition of this kind of jurisdiction by aboriginal people. These people ask why this is not in the legislation.
On the other hand there are the other water users in the Northwest Tferritories and Yukon who need to know and have before them in legislation the fact that times are changing, that there are new actors on the scene, that there are new jurisdictional arrangements being made.
While it is important that this bill goes forward, I really do believe that it is a mistake for this bill to go forward without Motion No. 1, which would eliminate any inconsistencies between land claims and this bill. It is a real mistake to let that legislation go forward the way it is without that particular amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Motion negatived.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


Robert Daniel Nault: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-52 be amended in Clause 45 by striking out lines 33 to 39 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor:
"Yukon Iferritoiy Water Board immediately before the coming into force of this Act continue as such thereafter as if they had been appointed pursuant to this Act."
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-52 be amended in Clause 46 by striking out lines 40 to 46 at page 30 and lines 1 to 24 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor:
"46. (1) Licences relating to the Yukon Iferritoiy that were in force under the Northern Inland Waters Act immediately before the coming into force of this Act continue in force thereafter as if they had been issued in accordance with this Act.
(2) On the day on which this Act comes into force, the Board shall send a written notification to the holder of each licence referred to in subsection (1), stating whether the licence is a type A licence or a type B licence in accordance with the regulations made under paragraph 33(lXc) and that licence shall henceforth be deemed to be of the type stated in the notification.

(3) Subsections 40(2) and (3) of this Act do not apply in respect of any condition of a licence referred to in subsection (1)
(a)	until the ninetieth day after the coming into force of this Act; or
(b)	if, on or before the day referred to in paragraph (a), the licensee has applied to the Board to".
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-52 be amended in Clause 47 by striking out lines 36 to 50 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor:
"or 9(1) of this Act if the person were not a licensee, the person may, notwithstanding those subsections, continue to use waters or deposit waste in a substantially equivalent way
(a)	until the ninetieth day after the coming into force of this Act; or
(b)	if, on or before the day referred to in paragraph (a), the person has applied to the Board for a licence to continue that use or deposit, until the day on which that application is finally disposed of by the Board."
Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-52 be amended in Clause 48 by striking out lines 1 to 5 at page 32 and substituting the following therefor:
"48. The Board shall deal with applications referred to in paragraphs 46(3)(b) and 47(h) in priority to all other applications received by it."
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-52 be amended by deleting Clause 50.
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-52 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 36 to 39 at page 33 and substituting the following therefor
"tion (1) unless Bill C-51 entitled An Act respecting water resources in the Northwest Territories and introduced on December 12, 1991, has been".


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, without anticipating any words that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River might want to bring to his amendments at this point, the government has accepted Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 with respect to transitional arrangements. Therefore, we are prepared to curtail the debate and move on if that would be the wish of the other members.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to mention Motion No. 8. If he accepts No. 8 then we do not have
Government Orders
any difficulty in dispensing with rehashing old ground that we have already talked about under Bill C-51. As has been mentioned by the minister they are accepted and we would be prepared to go to third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The vote will apply to Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 7 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 8 agreed to.


Thomas Edward Siddon: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Thomas Edward Siddon: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Government Orders CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
June 15, 1992

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual assault), as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are two notices of motions set down on the Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual assault).

Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys was moved, debated and negatived in the legislative committee.
I understand that there was a tie vote in the committee on this particular amendment, with the chairman casting his vote in the negative, allowing for further consideration of this amendment at the report stage.
Therefore, in this particular case, I am selecting the motion which will be debated and voted upon separately.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 1 by adding immediately after line 32 at page 2 the following:
"(4) Consent shall not be presumed on the basis of the complainant's clothing, appearance, age, ability or membership in any group, including on the basis of race, colour, religion, country or ethnic group of origin, marital status, sexual orientation, immigration status or employment, including prostitution.
She said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment seeks to name in the body of the bill the women most vulnerable to violence and the women with the least access to the justice system. The amendment states that consent on the part of the complainant cannot be presumed on the basis of membership in a disadvantaged group.
Over 60 diverse women's organizations in this country came together and agreed on a set of amendments to Bill C-49. They shared their experiences and their perspectives, and suggested amendments which would tell all women and men that sexually assaulting a woman because she is an aboriginal woman, a black woman, a prostitute, an immigrant or on any other basis would also be punished.
I introduced many of these amendments at the committee stage of this bill, and all but one was defeated by the majority on the committee. The amendments I introduced used the words that these women had worked on and struggled over, and had come to an unprecedented agreement on.
Members of Parliament are barred from proposing the same amendment twice so I have had to reword what is among the most important of the amendments and ask that members of this House reconsider it. The amendment I am proposing states that:
Consent shall not be presumed on the basis of the complainant's clothing, appearance, age, ability, or membership in any group, including on the basis of race, colour, religion, country or ethnic group of origin, marital status, sexual orientation, immigration status or employment, including prostitution.
This amendment would mean that sexist and racist myths about women would no longer be acceptable excuses to commit a sexual assault.
Women are still divided in our society into "good girls" and "bad girls", with the bad girls being less worthy of protection. Prostitutes, lesbians, black women, aboriginal women are often considered targets of violence in a society in which all women are not equal.
The Native Women's Association stated in their brief to the committee:
Aboriginal women are doubly damned by stereotypes.
June 15, 1992

As women, we are often subject to the presumption that we lie about being assaulted, that we are emotionally unstable, that we are spiteful and seek revenge, or that we provoke the attack.
As aboriginal women, we are also subject to the presumption that, if we had been drinking, we are drunks and would not have been assaulted if we were sober.
There is also still the perception that aboriginal women are available to provide sexual gratification to any man who demands it. People still cannot rid themselves of the notion that there are "good girls" and "bad girls".
People who think this way perceive that aboriginal women by their nature are bad girls.
In recent years, Inuit women have been subject to other judicial proclamations that incest is normal in Inuit societies, that a girl is ready for sex when she begins to menstruate, and that it is acceptable to have sexual relationships with young girls.
Aboriginal women experience higher rates of violence than most other women. Aboriginal women are living with the legacy of destruction and abuse in their own communities bom of residential schools, powerlessness and poverty, as well as the history of abuse by a white dominated society which called them savages and treated them as such.
Aboriginal women live with Helen Betty Osborne in their hearts and other aboriginal women, raped and murdered, and on which no action was taken by society at large.
Kitty Nowdluk-Reynolds is an Inuk women who was dragged across the country, handcuffed and imprisoned for eight days. Her crime was that she was a victim of sexual assault. There were no charges against her. She was locked in a van with her rapist, not by the rapist but by police. Ms. Nowdluk-Reynolds said this would never have happened to her if she were a white woman.
We heard during the committee hearings that most police officers, Crown counsels and judges are white, middle class men, and they find it easier to protect women who look like their wives and mothers.
Jails are filled over-proportionately with aboriginal people. Many aboriginal women do not trust the justice system and do not come forward because the justice system does not work for them.
We need to overhaul the criminal justice system, educate judges, lawyers and police, get more women and minorities integrated as an essential part of this system, but right now we can start with a law that would make a
Government Orders
racially motivated sexual assault a crime rather than an excuse to escape punishment.
The Native Women's Association says that naming aboriginal women in the bill would make it easier for aboriginal women to come forward with reports of sexual violence.
More than 40 per cent of disabled women have been sexually assaulted. We heard at committee that disabled women are targeted because they are more vulnerable and less likely to be believed by police and in the courtroom. Disabled women are often more dependent on others and have learned to keep silent in order to survive.
A study of assaulted disabled women found that charges were laid 14 per cent of the time, few cases were taken to court, and 5.8 per cent of the accused were found guilty. That means that 94 per cent of those who assault disabled women are still out there targeting perhaps other disabled women for assault.
The committee heard that the excuses made in the sexual assaults of disabled women included, "it is okay to rape her, she did not know what was going on anyway" and "it was okay because she could not feel anything anyway".
Bill C-49 must explicitly state that such excuses will no longer hold up in court and that consent cannot be presumed on the basis of disability.
Prostitutes have been raped and murdered and their reports of violence against them are not taken seriously. It seen they cannot be raped because they take money for sex. This should not mean that they never have the right to say no to sex or no to sex for free or that they deserve to be beaten or deserve to die. There have been 38 sex trade workers killed in the lower mainland of Vancouver. Even murders of prostitutes tend to be closed and abandoned earlier by the police. Prostitutes' rights organizations have told us that they have been put into the position of having to find the evidence and do the work.
Immigrant and refugee women are also particularly vulnerable to abuse. Women have been deported for reporting that their husbands abused them. If their husband is their sponsor and the sponsorship breaks

Government Orders
down, the woman might find herself out of the country very quickly.
There has also been a case of a Canadian immigration official demanding sex in exchange for entry into the country. We must make it clear that this is not acceptable in our country and is punishable with strong criminal sanctions.
A recent survey of college men in Canada found that 30 per cent of men said they would rape if they thought they could get away with it, one-third of the young men who were surveyed. What we need to say clearly and strongly is that they cannot get away with it, not any more.
During the committee hearings we heard stories of racism, lack of access to the justice system and aboriginal women and women of colour less likely to be believed by the police and the court system.
I have also added clothing and appearance to this amendment because these are often used against women. Everyone, woman, man or child, has the right to security of the person. This right is not given up on the basis of a low-cut blouse, lack of underwear or any other excuse.
A judge found that a woman provoked a physical assault against her because she was wearing a T-shirt that made her husband mad. Our assault laws must be clear that clothing and appearance are not the issues in sexual assault. Violence is the issue. We are looking at whether someone committed a crime, not at the fashions that have been sported by the complainant.
The Minister of Justice has refused to support an amendment that would name doubly oppressed women in this bill because she and her department have said that all women are vulnerable to sexual violence. That is true. Every woman, young or old, can be a target of sexual violence but some women are much more vulnerable than others.
It is important that Parliament of Canada make it clear that sexist and racist myths can no longer be used as excuses to sexually assault women. I would hope that all members will take this important amendment into consideration today.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the amendment suggested by the hon. member for New Westminster- Burnaby. It is an amendment which has a lot of good common sense.
We in the legislative committee on Bill C-49, as the hon. member said, heard a great deal of testimony from women's groups that wanted this sort of amendment. Frankly, the hon. member and I both presented amendments in committee to achieve this result but unfortunately they were defeated. While I do not particularly like the wording here as much as I liked the wording we presented in the legislative committee, certainly the House should support the amendment.
Frankly, there is no other way to word it because it cannot be worded in the same way and brought in at report stage and that is unfortunate. The member has done a very good job in wording this amendment. As I mentioned, I would like to support her on this.
The women's groups that came before us made a great deal of sense in their application. They said that women of colour, aboriginal women, disabled women and women who are under pressure because of immigration or employment status are not given the same consideration in our criminal justice system as are white women who are gainfully employed and do not have these pressures or these disadvantages in presenting themselves before our criminal justice system.
They say that white women are believed in front of the criminal justice system without any question by the judges and by the lawyers and by the police, much more so than women of colour, aboriginal women, sex-trade workers, disabled women and those who have some kind of employment or immigration question pending. They say there is more of a tendency to assume that they consented to the sexual assault than is the case with other women.
They say that in our system, as it is today, all women should be given the benefit of the doubt and believed that they are telling the situation as it happened. However, they say they are not receiving the benefit of the doubt which may go to other women. They say that regardless of the law stating that all women are equal in their complaints on sexual assault, they are not believed.
June 15, 1992

They are not believed by the courts and they are not believed by the police.
While it can be said that this type of an amendment is not necessary in our country because we have equality before the law, there is the de facto situation which has been pointed out to us by these women which says that they are disadvantaged before the law. They want this amendment included.
They wanted some changes to the preamble. The Minister of Justice has stated that the preamble is not going to be part of the Criminal Code. It will be a part of Bill C-49, a part of the legislation and presumably will be mentioned in the commentary of the Criminal Code but will not be a part of it. For that reason we need this clarification in the bill.
The request being made by these women is perfectly understandable and I feel that the House should support them completely and unanimously.
One of the reasons I was pleased that we were having a report stage is that I thought the minister would actually be tabling an amendment to accomplish this. From her commentary, it seemed that she felt there was a valid concern here that these women did have a very valid point that needed to be addressed and that she would be bringing forward an amendment. However, the Department of Justice has not brought forward an amendment either in legislative committee or in this report stage today. I am very disappointed in that. I was hopeful that the government would support the concern that it seems to have been stating.
However, I do feel that this amendment is very important and certainly I would support it.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with Bill C-49, a sexual offences bill. It has been at second reading stage, it went to committee and the committee heard many witnesses and it is now back to report stage at which we have two amendments to be made.
The history of sexual assault, and some years ago rape, is very interesting. There is absolutely no doubt that under the common law the law was very much weighted against the interests of women in this area of sexual assault and rape.
Parliament stepped in and in 1976 it made some amendments to limit the old common law rules. In 1983 Parliament stepped in again and refined them further.
Government Orders
Now in 1992, as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Seaboyer, Parliament is stepping in again.
I am quite convinced, although one can never predict these things with any absolute certainty, that this bill will come as close to being charter proof as any bill can at this point because the law is really starting to reflect the changing attitudes of our society.
The women's groups did a very good job in the consultation process leading up to the bill and this bill constitutes a real step ahead.
With respect to this motion which purports to add a new subclause 4 to the bill, I submit that it would really be a fundamental flaw to put such a list in the actual body of the statute.
The committee had an extensive debate on this. The committee made changes to the preamble to point out in the preamble the prevalence of sexual assault against women and children. Parliament is declaring to the courts across the whole land the importance of judges in that context. That is about as far as Parliament can go.
We had before us in the committee a number of different words for this type of clause and every one has a problem because the minute you start to put a list, some people might be left off it. Because the wording of it is that consent shall not be presumed, they make a list and if you are somebody who is not on the list there is an implication that maybe you have consented. We could all come up with our own lists.
For example, what if a woman is a hitch-hiker? She is not on the list, therefore is it presumed that she has consented? Other things could include motorcycle riders or a woman going to a man's apartment after having two or three drinks. Is that not capable of being abused?
We have to get back to the point the minister stressed again and again which responds to the latter point my friend from Cape Breton made. This law, as framed, applies to all women, all people, in terms of sexual offences. The minute you start limiting it down you are going to get yourself in trouble. The minister persuasively argued that we should stick with a law that covers everybody and makes it crystal clear.
It is very important that we do not make laws based on decisions of individual judges or individual instances because they often reflect only a foible of one person at that time or poor administration rather than a fundamental flaw in the law. Therefore, for those reasons I am asking members of the House to defeat this motion.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise along with my colleague, our justice critic, in support of this amendment.
The member for New Westminster-Burnaby in her remarks brought some information forward to the House which I found particularly interesting. She said 30 per cent of men surveyed in college thought that if they could get away with rape they would commit it.
As I listened to the member going through all of her remarks, all of her insights, I could not help but think that one of the problems we have in our society is the lack of awareness when a bill like this goes through the House with all the different changes.
In my own riding there are many immigrant women who are constantly suffering from abuse. This new law that we are going to put through the House might get into one or two of the major newspapers, but for all intents and purposes most of those women will not know anything about it.
I certainly support the amendment. However, once this does become part of the legislation we must figure out a way to communicate all of these changes, and not just in a press release or by sending out copies of the bill to the various institutions involved. We are conducting a competitiveness campaign in this country and are buying ads on television and in the ethnic press, et cetera. There is enough dramatic change in terms of education in this particular bill so that we should consider how to ensure that all of those people who are directly affected-aboriginal women, immigrant women and disabled women- are aware of the changes in this law.
To return to the survey that the member quoted, if people realized that they were not going to get away with this form of abuse or rape, or the other acts of abuse related to it, then that might go a long way in diminishing the number of attempts.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support this amendment.
In looking at the amendment one must first look at the nature of rape itself. It is not a sexual act, it is an act of power and violence. People who perpetrate sexual assaults and rape are trying to demonstrate their power over women.
This amendment is trying to deal with the fact that there are some women in our society who are doubly disadvantaged. They are powerless because they are women but they are also powerless because they belong to identified minority groups that have traditionally not had power in our society. They have been the ones who have disproportionately been abused by society and subject to sexual violence.
The other thing we must understand is that legislation, including criminal legislation, tries to do two things. It sets out the kind of behaviour that society says is not acceptable, and it also tries to change the attitudes of people toward certain kinds of behaviour. This amendment is definitely trying to change the attitudes that people have toward sexual violence to women who are in a disadvantaged position. As a result of that it would go a long way in providing protection for these women. Once we start changing attitudes then we can start changing behaviour.
I have worked in the court system and in corrections. Very clearly, women in these disadvantaged groups are the ones who are subject to the highest incidence of sexual violence, particularly aboriginal women. Women in the inner cities, particularly native women, and women on reserves have always been subject to a disproportionate amount of sexual abuse. Immigrant women feel particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse during the time they are landed immigrants because they are concerned that if they make an issue of it they will be deported or will not be allowed to proceed with their Canadian citizenship.
We should take the opportunity when we are passing legislation to ensure that we clearly set out not only standards of behaviour but the changes in attitude that we want in this society.
This amendment goes a long way toward that goal because it points out clearly that it is no longer acceptable in our society for people in disadvantaged positions to be abused.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?
June 15, 1992


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-49 be amended in clause 2 by striking out lines 4 and 5
at page 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are some areas in this bill that I would rather see changed, I do not think there is any question about that, even though I support the bill and think it is a major step forward.
However, there is one area that really must be changed. It causes me a good deal of concern. It is not a major point and can be deleted without any difficulty. It is just that the government has chosen not to.
This bill deals with two major areas. One is consent, the woman giving consent to the sexual activity or consent between two adults and what constitutes that consent. The other major area is the past sexual activity of the complainant and whether that should or should not be an issue.
It has been decided in this legislation that during the trial there will be a hearing within the trial, in other words a voir dire. It will be determined at that time whether the past sexual activity of the complainant is an issue and can aid the case of the accused, or whether it may just dredge up a lot of information that cannot help the accused but can cause severe distress and embarrassment to the complainant.
It is an important area. The government in this bill has listed the things that will be taken into consideration. It says in clause 2, which is an amendment to 276(3) of the Criminal Code, that:
(3) In determining whether evidence is admissible under
subsection (2), the judge, provincial court judge or justice shall take
into account-
Then it lists the things that will be taken into account.
Government Orders
The second item to be taken into account is society's interest in encouraging the reporting of sexual assault offences.
In my opinion this is particularly unacceptable because it interferes with due process and the right of the accused to a fair trial. I think that society's interests are of paramount importance. Please do not misunderstand me on that.
However, there are areas in which society's interests are taken into consideration. For instance, society's interests are now being taken into consideration when we debate this bill in the House of Commons, when we go through the second and third reading stages, and report stage and when we are before the legislative committee.
We are taking society's interests into account because we are trying to make this bill as good a bill as we possibly can and deal with the needs of society, particularly those people who are going to be involved: the complainant and the accused. All of society's interests must be taken into consideration, so we do that. We take society's interests into account when we consider the bill.
We also take society's interests into account when the Crown prosecutor is determining, in co-operation with the police and other parties, whether to lay charges, what charges will actually be laid and what section of the Criminal Code will be applied. We are taking society's interests into account then.
Once the determination of innocence or guilt is brought forward we take society's interests into account in the sentencing. In these three major areas we take society's interests into account. That is the way it should be.
However during the trial itself what must be of paramount importance and what we must never lose sight of at any time during the trial proceedings is the innocence or guilt of the accused. That person who is brought before our courts is entitled to a fair trial without any outside agendas being imposed on the case. That is not only the case with respect to the actual trial itself, the main trial, but it also must be the case when we are taking into consideration voir dires or other hearings that determine what is to be introduced in the main trial.
It is not that society's interests are not important, but they cannot be allowed to interfere with the determining of the innocence or guilt of the accused. That is what is

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
going to happen if we allow society's interests to be a factor in this process.
The other thing that is perhaps even more alarming is that it will undoubtedly become a precedent. It will become a precedent when we are talking about other legislation. Once we bring the concept of society's interests into a court of law then it is going to be very difficult to withdraw it.
For that reason I ask that those lines regarding society's interests as a consideration in the hearing of the past sexual conduct of the complainant be struck out.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, as my friend opposite pointed out the committee had a debate on this motion. The vote was divided equally among the committee members. As the chairman I voted against it on the basis that it could be brought back and the member could make his case here in the House.
I would like to put the arguments against accepting this motion. It seeks to delete one of the factors that a judge must consider in determining whether evidence of the complainant's sexual history is admissible in accordance with the test for admissibility set out in the bill.
It is important to make a distinction between the factors to be considered and the actual test that is set out in the bill. The test follows those principles enunciated in R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme.
Evidence of a complainant's sexual activity is not admissible unless it is evidence of specific instances of sexual activity, it is relevant to an issue to be proved at trial and it has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.
When applying this test the judge is guided by a series of factors that have been set out in the bill. The judge must take these factors into account when determining whether the evidence has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.
In other words, the judge must weigh the probative value of the evidence against the danger of prejudice. I appreciate that these are fancy legal words but they have
very real meaning in the day to day operations of the court.
The factors are offered to guide and to assist and to ensure that all judges in Canada are guided by the same considerations when determining the admissibility of evidence.
Bill C-49 proposes seven specific factors which the judge should consider. In addition, the judge may take into account any other factor considered relevant. No one single factor will determine admissibility. The factors are not the test.
For all of those reasons I would ask members to vote against this motion.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I too speak in opposition to this amendment. In all of the testimony that we heard at the committee from women's organizations and in the arguments I put forward on my amendment which has just been defeated in the House to include doubly disadvantaged women, one of the things that women understand very well is that we have been conditioned in our society not to bring forward charges of sexual assault. Young girls are still socialized today to keep things of this nature-perhaps being touched by a person, which is inappropriate to a little girl-secret and to be quiet about them.
Women are conditioned this way all through society. I understand my friend's concern from a legal perspective but I must speak very strongly from a personal and female perspective on the need for our society to encourage women and children to come forward, to speak clearly about these issues and to have some sense that their concerns and their personal experiences as women and children will be taken seriously by the court.
I would encourage members in the House today to vote against this amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
June 15, 1992


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 2 negatived.


Thomas Edward Siddon: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Thomas Edward Siddon: that Bill C-49 be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Debate. The hon. member for Lethbridge.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on point of order. Given that we are only five minutes from Question Period and members of all three parties would like to speak at third reading, you might find unanimous consent to suspend the sitting and we will take it up at three o'clock.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The sitting of the House is therefore suspended until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.56 p.m., the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, another chapter in the struggle for democracy in the countries of the former Soviet Union unfolds this week as we prepare to welcome Russian President Boris Yeltsin to Canada.
In the interest of international peace and security, Canada has thrown its full support behind all of these countries. For example, last February Canada signed a declaration of friendship and co-operation with Russia.
Canadians are disturbed, however, by the continued presence of approximately 200,000 Russian troops in the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. This is an unwanted occupation in complete violation of international law.
Just yesterday Lithuanians voted 90 per cent in favour of an unconditional withdrawal during a national referendum in that country. All of us are aware of the difficulties associated with sending these troops back to Russia where shelter and employment opportunities are rare, but the time has come for their troops to leave.
I therefore urge the Prime Minister to raise this issue with President Boris Yeltsin and insist that further assistance to Russia be contingent upon a complete troop withdrawal from the Baltics.


ABORTION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, in 1990, 94,180 Canadian babies were aborted. That comes to approximately 24 abortions for every 100 live births.
For those abortions done in hospitals and even in some private abortion clinics, medicare funded by tax dollars is paying for a procedure that has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with the destruction of human life.
The House resumed at 2 p.m.

June 15, 1992
Abortion is not therapeutic. It treats no medical, psychiatric or social problem. It cures no disease. However, we know for certain abortion eats up a hefty chunk of the health care budget.
We have a crisis in medicare with people waiting for life-saving treatment while provincial governments fund an elective procedure, abortion, at a time when genuine health services are being slashed. By paying for abortions, governments are mismanaging scarce tax moneys entrusted to their care.
In view of the increased pressure on health funding, I call upon all governments to stop public financing of abortions.


THE TORONTO STAR
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, as a former unionized employee of The Toronto Star, I regret the present situation at the Star. The management of the newspaper is refusing to negotiate with the union representing journalists and support workers. Indeed, the owners of the paper have brought in replacement workers to try to keep the paper operating despite this legal strike.
Not surprisingly, they have been met by continuing protests aimed at stopping strike-breaking. This angry confrontation shows how essential it is that the labour law reforms in Ontario be passed. These changes will prevent the hiring of strike-breakers. The result will be greater fairness and less violent confrontation in labour relations in Ontario.
Meanwhile, I urge the owners of the Star to remember Joseph Atkinson who made the Star a crusading paper for the rights of workers and to settle this dispute through fair negotiation instead of the use of force.


EARTH SUMMIT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the earth summit in Rio was the largest and most important global gathering in human history. There were some who cast doubt on what would be accomplished in Rio.
I believe the five principal documents that came out of the earth summit, namely, the Rio Declaration, the
Statement of Forest Principles, Agenda 21, the Global Warming Convention and the Biodiversity Convention, all attest to the over-all success of the summit.
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney did all Canadians proud in not only his excellent address but especially in the way he provided a clear direction and acted as a constructive bridge on the many important issues dealt with by the world leaders in Rio. Environment minister Jean Charest is to be commended for his outstanding contribution as leader of our Canadian delegation. I believe the earth summit will go down in history as the point when all nations of the world began to focus on preserving our common home. I am glad to have been part of that process.


PRINTING INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, printers across Canada are deeply concerned by the impact of this government's economic mismanagement of their industry. Canada's fourth largest manufacturing employer has lost 10,000 jobs in the past 18 months.
When the federal government recently announced its "Buy Canada" campaign, the Canadian Printing Industries Association launched its new "printed in Canada" logo as part of its contribution to this effort. The Minister for Small Businesses and Tourism personally unveiled this logo on Parliament Hill.
Last week we learned that Canada's main tourism guide, the official Traveller's Guide to Canada, paid for in part by Tourism Canada, was printed in the United States. The minister was wrong when he said in this House last Thursday that this was an American publication. It is a Canadian publication that the government had printed in the U.S.
The federal government is spending $4 million to encourage Canadians to shop at home. It is a sorry day, Mr. Speaker, when this government will not support its own "Buy Canadian" program.


ABITIBI-TEMISCAMINGUE
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Abitibi- Temiscamingue has been left out in the cold again.

Selection du Reader's Digest has just published a Guide de la route au Canada, in which No. 117, the Trans-Canada Highway, is shown as ending at Mont Tremblant in the Laurentians. This perpetuates a situation that is one of the grievances of the general director of the Val d'Or Tourism and Convention Office, Ms. Louise Potvin, as well as of the general public in our area. They feel that once again, their region and James Bay are being given short shrift.
A researcher with the publishing department of Selection in Montreal added that only the more densely populated areas had been chosen. In the pages on Quebec specifically, among the peripheral regions only the northwest and north were left out. The Gaspe, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and the north shore were included.
I would like to invite the directors of the Reader's Digest to come and visit our vast and beautiful region.


CLEARWATER LOBSTER PLANT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, a labour dispute in my constituency has been allowed to get out of hand due to inaction by the Nova Scotia government and over-reaction by the RCMP.
Workers at the Clearwater lobster plant in Cape Auget have been on a legal strike since May 14. Union and management had been progressing toward a new contract settlement. However, the appearance of scab workers during this strike has created strong feelings among workers and poisoned the bargaining atmosphere.
Last week's use of riot police, complete with attack dogs and billy clubs to break up a demonstration against replacement workers, provoked a violent confrontation.
The industrial inquiry agreed to Thursday by Nova Scotia Minister Leroy Legere at the insistence of MLA Richie Mann is better late than never.
Now it is time for cooler heads to prevail. Both labour and management need to suspend their mutual suspicions and focus on the issues that matter: wages, working conditions and seniority provisions that will allow the workers at Clearwater to go back to work.
Considering the millions of dollars in grants and loans which Clearwater has received from the federal government, management can afford to be generous.

Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievement of Mr. Robert Stewart, a native of Barrie, Ontario, and a son of a former member of Parliament of Simcoe South, now Simcoe Centre, Mr. Ron Stewart.
Robert Stewart is one of the four Canadians chosen by the Canadian Space Agency to attend a NASA training program in Houston to become a full astronaut and a candidate for a future shuttle mission.
I know that the members of this House join me in extending most sincere congratulations to Robert Stewart and best wishes for his future success. I know he will do Canada proud.


ATHABASCA
Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, for the 3,000 people in the Athabasca region of Saskatchewan isolation carries a heavy price tag. Overcrowded housing is causing outbreak of tuberculosis, communities lack proper sewer and water systems, food prices are sky-high, economic opportunities are limited because of the cost of shipping out local products like freshwater fish. Meanwhile, the Coast Guard reports that the construction of an all-weather road would save $1 million to $2 million now being spent annually on dredging and navigational aids for barging.
Studies by the Prince Albert Tribal Council indicate a road would save the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and First Nations $1.5 million on operations each year.
The cost of shipping materials for new housing, schools, and sewer and water systems, would be cut by additional millions. This is an obvious case of where we can save money and help people at the same time.

Therefore, I call on the Department of Indian Affairs, the Coast Guard, and the provincial Department of Transportation to get their act together and start work on an all-weather road into the Athabasca.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, as Canadians make their travel plans for the summer months, I hope they consider visiting the place where Canada was bom, my province of Prince Edward Island.
This year marks the 125th anniversary of our Canadian nation and celebrations are happening all across the country. Special events are happening on Prince Edward Island as well, as Islanders recreate the spirit of the historic Charlottetown Conference which led to Confederation.
Visitors to the island in search of rest and relaxation will also appreciate our magnificent beaches, delicious seafood, exciting live theatre, and our famous island hospitality.
Our reputation for celebrating the many aspects of our lives and of our history continues to draw visitors to our enchanted isle. In fact, whenever you visit the island there is certain to be an unforgettable community event awaiting your arrival.
On behalf of the citizens of Malpeque, I am delighted to extend an invitation to all members of this House, their families, to all Canadians to visit Prince Edward Island, one of the world's great islands.


THE VALOUR AND THE HORROR
Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, veterans in my riding of Fraser Valley East are outraged at the biased and defamatory CBC National Film Board series The Valour and the Horror.
Terence McKenna and his brother Brian decided to use public funds to develop a revisionist view of World War II. Despite technical and factual errors identified by academics and veterans, the CBC is quite happy to rerun this series.
Freedom of expression is a fine freedom. It is a freedom for which Canadian sailors, soldiers, and air
personnel fought and died, but freedom without responsibility is dangerous. It creates an imbalance and is a drain on the very system which guarantees the freedoms in the first place.
I do not advocate censorship, nor do veterans. What I do advocate is that the CBC begin to act responsibly and inject some balance of measure and fairness into the programs it funds and airs.
Terence McKenna can cast aspersions as he wishes. He is entitled to his views. But when it comes to representing Canadian war efforts, a biased and a very subjective diatribe is not worthy of public funding.
This series could well be the only information that many Canadians see about Canada's war effort. It is therefore imperative that the CBC provides a balance so that the public can make up its own mind and not be contaminated by the poisoned view of revisionist journalists and pseudo-historians.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to again state my support for the Canadian panel on violence against women. This panel has heard from thousands of women across the country, women who have dared to come forward to tell their stories of physical and mental abuse endured for years.
These women come from all levels of our society but they share one thing in common, the violence that has been directed at them for years.
The final report of the panel will be a comprehensive plan to deal with violence against all women: native, minority, rural, disabled, elderly, and young.
The changes needed in our society will be great. The greatest change is to change attitudes to women themselves. It is a difficult task but this is where the co-operation of law makers and society in general is crucial. We must unify our energies around this issue to work together on a common agenda and not be affected by incongruous demands.
Let us all work toward exterminating violence against women in Canadian society and let Canada be an example for the rest of the world.
June 15, 1992


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the headline in The Globe and Mail of June 12 reads:
Canada a winner in free trade. Survey shows exports to the U.S.
gained with imports no threat.
This was a survey of 325 companies conducted by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in April and May and the data compiled this month. It covered a wide range of business issues.
For the most part the results confirm claims made by the proponents, the supporters of the FTA, and it states that nearly half of the respondents said they increased capital investments in Canada since the agreement came into effect while only 9 per cent reduced investment.
It also pointed out that 56 per cent said they have not lost domestic market share to imports since 1989 and 39 per cent said exports to the United States have grown since 1989. Also, three-quarters of the companies see the U.S. as Canada's most attractive market in the future, 30 per cent citing Europe as the best market.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


THE DISABLED CONSUMER SOCIETY OF COLCHESTER
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the disabled community in my area has worked hard to improve their quality of life and have succeeded in several areas.
The Disabled Consumer Society of Colchester has established a special bus system to provide transportation in the Truro community. They have organized an employment service to locate employment for the disabled with funding from Canada Employment and Immigration. They have also participated in drafting legislation to provide access, opportunities and awareness.
The society is now urging Parliament to pass amendments to the Human Rights Act which will include a duty to provide accommodation for people with disabilities. As well, they are seeking to provide an undue hardship
5. 0. 31
clause and they want a barrier removal process to be implemented right away.
These amendments would enhance the employment opportunities for the disabled and help them participate in every aspect of Canadian society. They have proven that if given the tools with which to work they will achieve their goals. I hope that I can play a small part and be of assistance to them in their efforts.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, six Innu children died in a house fire in Davis Inlet in February of this year. They died because there was no running water to fight the fire in their community-
One hundred and fifty members of this Innu community were forced to relocate to an isolated island off Labrador by the Government of Newfoundland. The result of this forced relocation was the complete social disintegration of the community.
It is time for the premier of Newfoundland and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to stop denying responsibility for this community and to sit down and develop a plan for implementation of complete self-government and to institute a plan with sufficient resources for community and social reconstruction.
Action must take place by these two parties before any other children die in similar circumstances.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the Tbrkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Denktash, has said he is not troubled by Canada's threat to pull our peacekeeping forces out of Cyprus. Of course not. Mr. Denktash is backed by 30,000 regular Turkish troops facing a much smaller Greek Cypriot national guard across the green line.
If Canada did pull out, it would hurt one side and help the other. Giving one party the upper hand will certainly not create an incentive for a peaceful, just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem. In fact, just the opposite.

Oral Questions
Rather than removing our peacekeepers, Canada, through the Prime Minister's special relationship with President Bush, should push the United Nations during the Cyprus meetings scheduled to begin on Thursday in New York City to bridge the differences between Greek and Turkish Cypriots once and for all.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

["Mr. Speaker, I hope the member opposite agrees with the mandate of Marine Atlantic to manage the taxpayers' money properly. It has put in a structure that will do that without overcharging for small shipments. Again, I invite him to meet not with the Chamber of Commerce or others, but the CEO of Marine Atlantic who have put this new rate structure in place and dispel many of the misconceptions that have arisen from that."]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the government's principal justification for a free trade agreement with the United States was secure market access, but Canadian exporters, most recently steel producers, continue to face long and costly trade actions launched by the United States.
Contrary to the earlier statements of the Minister for International Trade that the U.S.-Canada Free Ttade Agreement would not be re-opened, the Minister for International Trade is now suggesting that the North American free trade agreement will correct some of its flaws.
Can we assume from this that Canada will finally win true secure access to the U.S. market and real exemption from U.S. trade law?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member has acknowledged that the dispute settlement mechanism under the free trade agreement is working. He would like to see it working a little bit better, but in fact we have won ten of those panels and lost nine, which is pretty good. We have equality with the United States when we have a dispute.
If that mechanism can be improved in any way, of course the government will do so.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister is fond of saying that the dispute settlement mechanism somehow resolves all trade questions between Canada and the United States, but he knows, as we all know, that the process takes months or even years to bring about any resolution, if indeed there is a resolution.
The minister also knows that there will be no secure access to the United States market unless all three countries in the North American free trade agreement can agree on a definition of subsidies and on dumping. Yet all the government ever says is that somehow this issue is being addressed in the current Uruguay round of the GATT. It is NAFTA the North American free trade agreement, which this government is on the verge of signing, not a still uncertain Uruguay round.
Can the minister now assure Canadians that the government will not sign the North American free trade agreement until it includes a clear definition of subsidies and a clear definition of dumping?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member complains about the amount of time that it takes to resolve a dispute under chapter 18 or chapter 19 of the free trade agreement.
In fact, the limit in one case is 180 days, the other, 315 days. He complains that it is too long, but what did we have before the free trade agreement? Nothing.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Hockin: We had three or four or five years, millions of dollars of expenditures on the American terms alone in order to settle any kind of trade dispute.
Now we have a time limit. Now we have panels that are constituted with one American, one Canadian, a neutral chairman. We have equality when it comes to a dispute. This is a tremendous improvement compared with what went before.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows perfectly well that in the pork dispute, for example, it took 21 months to reach a settlement.
During that long and costly process, Canadian exports to the United States were severely disrupted. Let me put the question to him even more simply. Is there going to be in the North American free trade agreement a subsidies code and a dumping code, or will there not be? Will this government sign a NAFTA that does not include a subsidies code?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a premature disclosure of that.
June 15, 1992

The government will announce what is in the agreement when it is signed. However, the hon. member does know that the whole subsidies discussion is part of the free trade agreement. It is the same with dumping, and it is important that progress be made.
What the hon. member must remember is that there are some American actions when it comes to dumping. There are American actions when it comes to subsidies that we do not find acceptable. We have an interest in making sure that there is progress on both those dimensions.



Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Full integration of sustained development in all trade treaties is one of the major items on which a consensus was reached in Rio. For Canada, the next trade treaty on the horizon is the one now being negotiated with the United States and Mexico. In this regard, could the minister give the House the assurance that all three countries will be subject to common environmental standards integrated as part of the principal agreement, and second, that failure to apply these standards will result in trade reprisals?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, environmental considerations with respect to NAFTA are being addressed in several different aspects simultaneously during the negotiations. They are part of the negotiations themselves.
Key participants of the environmental communities are part of the SAGnk. The Government of Canada has agreed that there would be an environmental assessment of the plan when it is completed.
Also there is an agreement that each country will continue to have its sovereignty right as you would wish, to establish and to protect its own environmental standards.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the parliamentary secretary.
Oral Questions
How future historians will judge the conference in Rio depends on how the nations of the world act in the months to follow. The issue is, will the focus of international trade shift from raw market forces to the needs of sustainable development?
Canada's position on this is about to be put to the test in the Mexican agreement.
First, will a dispute settlement mechanism in the agreement enforce the environmental standards of the countries involved? Second, will the parliamentary secretary or the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that the onus of proof in any dispute will be such as to favour those who would protect the ecosystem? That is the lesson of Rio.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member makes reference to Rio.
I want to say that I, and I am sure the vast majority of Canadians, are exceedingly proud of the leadership that this government provided at Rio.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are a series of quotes that I am sure you would be interested in, but time does not permit me to read all of them today or even any at this particular point in time.
As I said just a moment ago, what is very clear is that this government is committed to sustainable development. It is evident in the green plan. It is evident in our actions in a number of instances. It is evident in the way in which the NAFTA agreement is being negotiated.
Furthermore it was very evident at Rio. That was perfectly clear in view of the response with which the Government of Canada, including the Prime Minister, was received at every available public opportunity.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the spokesperson on international trade.
Given the fact that in this House the only two parties that support the North American free trade agreement talks are the Liberals and the Conservatives and the fact that they are out of tune with 67 per cent of Canadians who are opposed to the talks, the government has decided to launch a program to suggest to Canadians why this is good.

Oral Questions
I would like to ask the minister this question. Will the minister, in preparation for this discussion with the Canadian people about their views of the free trade agreement, release as requested by me on April 1 all of the sector by sector studies done, so that the people of Canada can have hard facts in front of them? Will the minister release those sector by sector studies or were they ever done before the government went into the negotiations?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the sectoral studies that have been done by the Department of Industry, Science and Technology and other parts of the government are well known to the hon. member.
Every time the Minister for International Trade or the Minister of Finance appears before a committee, they quote from the studies that the government has done. He knows that these documents exist.
He also knows that the confidential studies which have been done are not public. Generally, most of these sector studies are well known to the hon. gentleman through various briefings that he has attended and continues to attend.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I have been present at every single committee meeting when the Minister for International Trade has been there to address these questions. Never once has the minister referred to any sector by sector studies. Unless I have been struck stone deaf, we must be talking about two different meetings.
I ask the minister who is speaking on behalf of the minister, on behalf of the excuses for the government, if the government is prepared to spend millions of dollars in an advertising campaign to sell its point of view on the free trade agreement and whether those who oppose the free trade agreement will have access to taxpayers' dollars to present the other side of the argument to the Canadian people?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that he and his party have been offered confidential briefings on the NAFTA arrangements and the NAFTA negotiations. As I understand it, he can make himself available for those. I gather he does not want to make himself available for those.
His position and the position of the NDP, if it is similar to the NDP in British Columbia where the hon. member comes from, is that we should not negotiate at all for NAFTA. What should happen is that Mexico and the United States should negotiate and they should do a deal. Then at the last minute they would decide whether Canada should do a deal.
This is a ridiculous approach to tripartite negotiations. That is not our approach. Our approach is to be there from the beginning and to get the maximum benefit for Canada.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I am just a humble boy from the country.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


David Barrett: When I go into negotiations to buy a house or sign an agreement, I hire a lawyer. Some of the best firms in British Columbia are available to me.
I also talk to scientists and researchers before I put my name to any document. Could this government explain to Canadian people why it would call a meeting where there are no sector by sector studies, say that it is quoting from such studies that do not exist, and then go out and tell Canadian people that it is good for them without showing one shred of evidence to the people?
I would not sign a deal like that on a mortgage on a house. Why would the government mortgage this country without some hard evidence before it goes into these negotiations?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the humble country boy opposite would have us do the following. This is one of the problems perhaps with having that particular humble boy doing any negotiating for Canada. What he would do is have our whole negotiating position made public before he went in to negotiate. This is absolutely ridiculous.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, like many other members of this House during the weekend I was stopped many times and was asked: "Is my telephone bill going to go up because of Friday's CRTC decision?"
June 15, 1992


Mr. Epp:: Where? At the tennis club?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has the floor.


Sheila Finestone: With the opening up of telephone competition in the long distance field people are worried about their local rates. The industry says it doubts that local rates can stay down and Mr. Spicer says: "Don't worry. They will be protected".
What specific assurances can the government give to local phone users that their rates will remain reasonable and that these rates will not go up? What kind of confidence can they have?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, my first inclination if somebody put that question to me would be to quote the hon. member who was on CBC a couple of days ago.
She said about the CRTC: "Really they opened the whole box of competition. I would say that with that open door I am certainly not going to tell you we should close that door. I am going to say that we are going to watch what Mr. Spicer said when he made a very important point of ensuring that we would have affordable local rates, that they are going to be maintained. That is what I would say to them".


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, that is fine. That is what I said. That is what Mr. Keith Spicer said. What does the minister say? Is the minister going to ensure that local rates will stay down for all Canadian consumers?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, a key part of Bill C-62 is designed to ensure that all Canadians in all parts of Canada have affordable phone rates and the best possible service anywhere in the world.
I would think the best way to guarantee that sort of service to all Canadians would be for this House to move expeditiously on Bill C-62.
Oral Questions CHAMPION SPARK PLUG


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Last Friday the American owners of Champion Spark Plug in Windsor announced that they were turning it into a warehouse and transferring the production jobs there to their plant in Iowa in spite of the efficiency and co-operation of the Canadian workers.
I ask the minister: Why is it that, since the signing of this government's free trade deal with the United States, when these kinds of moves take place they are almost always at the expense of the Canadian workers?
I further ask the minister: Will he contact the American owners of Champion Spark Plug today to urge them to keep that plant open and recognize the productivity and efficiency of these Canadian workers?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is doubly out of date. First, he does not know, at least in his question, that there has been a drastic decline in the size of the North American spark plug market as a result of smaller and cleaner burning engines.
He is from an automotive town. He should know that these cleaner burning engines have been a major factor in this industry and this is what has led to a downsize in the demand for spark plugs.
Also he does not know-and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association made it clear last week in its big survey, the survey of its membership-that in fact capital investments in Canada have increased since the free trade agreement.
In fact twice as many manufacturing firms in Canada expanded their investments in Canada since the free trade agreement than decreased them; 56 per cent said they had not lost domestic market share to imports; 39 per cent said that exports have grown significantly; 42 per cent expect higher exports; and so on.
What is happening since the free trade agreement is that our manufacturing sector, contrary to everything we

June 15, 1992
Oral Questions
hear from the hon. member, is increasing and improving. The hon. member refuses to recognize this.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, plants that have closed down do not answer surveys, so what he has to say has little meaning to the workers at Champion Spark Plug and at plants like it which are losing their jobs because the jobs are going to the United States.
He has not answered my question as to why, if the market for spark plugs is declining, the jobs are not consolidated in Windsor rather than in Iowa.
Why was it that when the minister of industry was asked about this on Friday all he could say was that this was a sign of "a dynamic economy"? Canadians will shudder at the idea that for this government a dynamic economy is one that means our plants are turned into warehouses and the jobs go to the United States.
Will the minister assure us that in any North American free trade deal there will be a return to Canadian content for automobiles to help prevent further Champion Spark Plug situations? If not, how will such a deal help Canadian workers in the auto industry, in that industry as a whole?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I think it is dangerous for the hon. member to stand up and ask questions about the automotive sector in Ontario when in fact in his riding, in Windsor for example, Chrysler has just added a third van line. We have a $2 billion to $3 billion announcement by Ford in Oakville. There is tremendous expansion coming there. Ste. Therese in Quebec has just added 800 workers to expand its work force.
There is example after example of the fundamental truth about the North American environment for automobiles, and that is 10 years ago we had a 14 per cent share of the automotive production in North America. Today we have 24 per cent.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the Unitel matter.
In the CRTC decision the minority opinion said: "The United States is an example of a country where, with long distance competition, there have been significant increases in local rates".
We were told that it costs $300 to install a phone in California. I checked today and in a rural town such as Southend in northern Saskatchewan as a result of the competition they are talking about $5,000 now. We know it went up in Japan as well and anywhere else there was deregulation.
Will the minister ask for a cabinet review of this decision? In the cabinet review will the cabinet build in guarantees that the ordinary Canadian phone user, the home phone user, will not be gouged as a result of this decision?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe my ears. Is the hon. member saying that Sask Tel which is owned by the NDP Government of Saskatchewan wants to charge $5,000 for telephone service to residents of that province? It is astonishing if that is so.
On the particular point raised by the hon. member with regard to the situation in the United States, all I can do is quote the chairman of the CRTC who said, directly on the point raised by the hon member: "Canadians of all social and economic circumstances want us to be vigilant in maintaining affordable local telephone service". We are committed to doing exactly that and to preventing unnecessary or excessive increases. Before anyone tries scare tactics on Canadian consumers, let me underline that today's decision was made in Canada, not the United States. It is not deregulation. No phone company is being broken up. Canadians can still buy both their local and long distance services from the same company.
Let us not use phoney arguments to scare Canadian consumers. Let us stick to the facts.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, phoney arguments. If the minister had any guts he would stand and answer my question and give the consumers a guarantee-


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark and then put his question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I know the minister has lots of intestinal fortitude and I withdraw that.
I would have asked him to give a guarantee because the CRTC itself said it did not predict significant increases. It did not say there would not be increases. I ask him to consider that.
June 15, 1992

On another tack and as a supplementary question, I want to ask him this seriously. Tlte Unitel decision will hurt one of Canada's largest companies. Indeed I think it may be the largest; Bell is the 40th largest in North America. Jean Monty, president of Bell, has said that the real competition will not come from Unitel but that it will come from the American telecommunications giants.
How does the minister propose that Canada compete in the North American communications trade when we are hamstringing one of the few Canadian businesses that could in fact compete with the American multinationals? What is he going to do to change that situation?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would live to see the day in this House when the spokesperson for the NDP would call on us to protect one of the largest companies in Canada against competition. What a change in philosophy there has been there.
When the hon. member raises the issue of Saskatchewan, the best way to deal with protecting consumers in Saskatchewan is for members on all sides of this House to pass Bill C-62 to ensure that there are rate hearings for the residents of Saskatchewan on their phone service, which there are not today; to ensure that the CRTC can continue to bring down rates across the country; local rates do not go up; and that the people of Saskatchewan also have that protection.
When we talk about protecting Canadian companies against the United States, the best way to do that is to ensure that Canadian phone services are affordable and that Canadian companies are not routing through the United States to get cheaper services.


OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In 1986 Canada announced that official development assistance would no longer be meted out as loans to developing countries. Since then Canada has provided unconditional ODA debt forgiveness to the poorest sub-Saharan and Caribbean countries.
Oral Questions
Last week, however, the Prime Minister in Rio targeted 10 impoverished Latin American countries to receive $145 million of conditional debt relief.
Unable to service any ODA debt in any manner, what incentives will Canada provide to these countries to invest in sustainable development projects?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this is one of the initiatives at Rio of which Canada is very proud and in which our Prime Minister played a lead role.
The forgiveness of the debt in relation to environmental projects is very specific. What it means is that it is not a blanket review of debt of these countries. It is tied to specific proposals.
The forgiveness of debt over time under the Trinidad terms has been very generous to underdeveloped countries, and indeed we have taken the lead in putting that into place as well.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister used words in Rio to promote the enhancement of our International Development Research Council's independent and internationally renowned reputation, but the government continues its plans to scrap the council's independence by incorporating it under the Financial Administration Act.
Will the government agree today to stop its meddling in the mandate of the IDRC and give up its intention of internalizing it under the Financial Administration Act?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an entirely appropriate role for the IDRC which has really embraced this expanded mandate. It is an organization that we are very proud of and that will now be in a position to have even more impact on the world than it has had before.
I believe this move is a very constructive one and it will be very helpful to the countries involved.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.

June 15, 1992
Oral Questions
At the earth summit in Rio, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand and Australia all pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 20 per cent from 1988 levels.
If the government is really committed to sustainable development as the parliamentary secretary earlier announced, why did Canada fail to exercise leadership in this crucial area by not committing to carbon dioxide cuts beyond stabilization?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of a relatively few number of countries in the world that have in fact provided leadership at Rio by indicating that we would stabilize at 1990 levels by the year 2000. There are other countries we wish had chosen to adopt that same significant standard of leadership but did not. We are very proud of the fact we were there and were in the forefront.
Furthermore, we also made a commitment to quick-start the same convention. In fact, the Prime Minister was one of the first leaders to sign the convention in question. He indicated we would be ratifying it this veiy year.
I would also hope that those who had the opportunity to attend Rio as part of the official Canadian delegation would come back and be very supportive of that commitment which, indeed, is a significant one.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Contrary to the answer by the parliamentary secretary Canada unfortunately is not leading the pack.
Therefore, I have to repeat my question. If Canada is really committed to sustainable development, why does the government not implement the commitment made by the Prime Minister last Tbesday in this House as recorded on page 11654 of Hansard, to put reduction in gas emissions, not stabilization, firmly on his political agenda?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: First of all, the question of what happens after Rio is very significant. We on this side have understood that Rio was in a very real sense just the beginning of a very important process. The debate will probably go on for a few weeks as to who did what at Rio.
I would just like to take this opportunity to refer to the quotes of Mostafa Tolba, the executive director of the
United Nations Environment Program, who said: "Canada has broken the ice by signing. We are grateful to Canada and we are grateful to the Prime Minister." That was with reference to the biodiversity convention which was one of several very important achievements at Rio.
I truly believe, as do most Canadians, we were in the forefront with respect to environmental change, with respect to the convention to which the hon. member refers, with respect to biodiversity and with respect to fisheries. We have made some progress with respect to forestry as well.


ABORIGINAL SELF-GOVERNMENT
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. I appreciate the sort of hiatus in the discussions now. The Prime Minister is returning and I know the minister has to brief the Prime Minister. Perhaps eventually the House will find out in more detail what we have heard in the press which has led us to this present hiatus.
I would like the minister to clarify some confusion and uncertainty about one of the very important matters which seems to have been agreed upon in principle. That is the inherent right of the aboriginals to self-government and the statements of the minister and others at the conference that in effect this item can be delayed for three years and be negotiated and then perhaps referred to the courts.
How can this be a very tenable position when I am sure the minister knows, and certainly the Minister of Justice knows coming from British Columbia, on this very day in British Columbia the Court of Appeal is hearing the case of Delamuukw v. the Queen and the Attorney General of Canada on this very issue?
I would like to know how that can be rationalized. It is clear from the court case in British Columbia what the aboriginals believe self-government means is a little different from what we have seen in the press.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, obviously constitutional discussions are now underway. Once they are concluded in the next two to three weeks they cannot affect a question that is before the courts now.
June 15, 1992

What has been agreed on is there would be a recommendation to Parliament and the legislatures that we recognize the inherent right to self-government, that we recognize it is not a contingent right but that the Constitution would also reflect an agreement entered into voluntarily by all governments and by all aboriginal leaders and groups that no one would take that new non-contingent inherent right to court for at least three years. That period of time would allow for discussion and negotiation as to the interpretation of an inherent right in a particular case.
That is an admirable compromise. I congratulate the aboriginal leaders on being willing, once they have established their right, to negotiate its application during a three-year time period.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate, in part, the minister's response.
Talking about compromise, how can the fact be rationalized that one party says it is going to delay the interpretation when at the very moment in British Columbia there is another three weeks of this very fundamental and important case, an appeal from Chief Justice McEachem, on this very issue?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for one thing, I understand that the issue is different.
For another thing, I do not think anyone has suggested that the fact a matter is under discussion in constitutional deliberations should mean all actions in all courts having relation to that matter should suddenly cease.
We cannot act retroactively that way. The hon. member would be one of the most vigorous to oppose it were we to suggest that kind of retroactivity. We are dealing with matters that might arise in the future and I think we have found a way.
Frankly, it needs a little more refinement in the discussions that are going on. That will occur and we will be able to find an agreement which will be broadly acceptable.
Oral Questions


AGRIFOOD INDUSTRY
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Agriculture. Both the Quebec farmers' union, UPA and the Quebec agriculture minister, Yvon Picotte, think that the agriculture summit which ended in Trois-Rivieres yesterday gave Quebec's agrifood community new confidence in the future. The UPA president took the lead on Thursday by announcing to everyone's surprise that his organization was determined to take on export markets, provided the risks were shared by the other partners, namely the distributors and other intermediaries.
Can the minister tell us today that Quebec farmers will have help from the Canadian government in making Quebec's agrifood industry more competitive internationally?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I think that these statements reported in the press last week show how sensible farmers in Quebec and Canada are. It also ties in with the review of all our agricultural policies that we began about two years ago.
I will repeat some of what the UPA president said:
The UPA president thinks that Quebec agriculture has everything it needs to gain new export markets. "The farm community is ready for change. It is better equipped with its expertise to face international competition in the future," said Mr. Proulx.
That shows that this government's policies asking farmers in Quebec and Canada to prepare for the future in a positive and dynamic way will have good results.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence.
The government has tried to justify the $4.3 billion helicopter deal by saying it would be unsafe to modernize the existing Labrador and Sea King helicopter fleets.

June 15, 1992
Oral Questions
If that is so, why did the United States navy, the Australian navy and the Japanese navy recently upgrade their Labrador fleets at one-fifth of the cost? Why has Great Britain just upgraded its Sea King helicopter fleet at a substantially lower cost?
Finally, why is the government wasting money on this $4.3 billion helicopter deal when it tells the world all it can do for the global environment is forgive $145 million of Third World debt?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to remind my colleague that there is no deal. There is no decision. Our department is looking at a variety of options by which we can ensure we will have the kind of equipment needed to go into the 21st century.
Ib upgrade equipment is still not the best answer. It is like having a car. You can keep on upgrading the car but eventually there comes a time when it really does not work as effectively as it should.
We could spend a few dollars perhaps to put in some new engines. That will not provide the capability really needed for the future. We could spend a few more dollars but actually, looking at the costs of doing a full upgrade, it is almost comparable to buying a new helicopter.
If I were to ask what the hon. member would rather have, would he rather have a refitted engine, a refitted car, a refitted helicopter that still would not do the job, or a brand new one that would get us ready for the 21st century?


CHILD CARE
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women has shown herself to be a very strong advocate for helicopters at a cost of over $4 billion to the Canadian taxpayers.
When will the minister become just as strong an advocate for the women and children of this country? When will she honour the commitment her government has made over and over again to a national child care program for the over one million children in desperate-


Mr. Speaker:: We must try to keep going.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, this supplementary is perhaps not in order. Nevertheless, I am pleased to respond to my hon. colleague.
I can assure the hon. member of my advocacy on behalf of women in this country by ensuring that we deal with the primary issues of equality, of violence against women, of looking at ways in which to ensure that work and family responsibilities are attended to not just by government but by employers as well.
On the issue of child care, this government provides over $1 billion a year to the provinces for child care, a substantial portion to assist those families requiring those kinds of needs. We will continue to attend to the needs of children through such programs as the $2.2 billion child tax credit.
I can assure my colleague that this government looks after every sector of people in this country, including the men and women in the Armed Forces, including the children of this country.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of fisheries.
Last week's decision at the earth summit to hold a conference on high seas fishing may help to address the problem in the long term. The real question of course is whether there is a long term and whether there will be any fish left to save a year or two from now.
What assurances does the minister have from the European Community that it will now honour the NAFO moratorium until the conference deals with the issue?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, it was very significant that at the summit meeting in Rio a week ago, for the first time as far as I know, the organized world community of 180 countries recognized that overfishing and the failure to apply principles of sustainable development in the fishery was a major world environmental problem.

The 180 nations there adopted a resolution which was an initiative of Canada together with 39 other countries. This will be a great help to us in the longer term with reference to future fish stocks.
We have to start somewhere. No one can expect that the whole world will arrive at the decisions one would like within five minutes or five months, but we are well on the way.
In the meantime, there is a short-term problem, hopefully short-term, in the northwest Atlantic with reference to the northern cod and flatfish stocks. I am sorry to have to relate to the House that there is a problem with cod fish in other areas as well, for example, off Iceland. There is a problem this year off Greenland in the Baltic with reference to cod stocks. While misery loves company, it is too bad that this is happening in other areas as well.
With respect to our own problems, we will act when we have all the information that is necessary in July. If we have to close any fisheries-


Mr. Speaker:: Let us see if we can move on. The hon. member for Burin-St. George's, a supplemental.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, when the minister gets all the facts. How many more facts, how many more closed fish plants does he need for proof? He has enough facts. The problem is right on his doorstep.
The straddling stocks are as vulnerable as ever. In that respect, despite all the optimism and the rhetoric of last week, very little has changed, if anything.
I want to know how far the minister is prepared to go to protect that resource? How far is he prepared to go? Why is he ruling out taking over custodial management despite the fact that last week at Rio he was strongly urged by an expert in international law to do exactly that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to see that the hon. gentleman is more negative today about the achievements we made in Rio last week than he was in Rio. I am sorry that he has had this change in attitude.
Oral Questions
How far am I prepared to go? I am prepared to go as far as is necessary to overcome the issue of overfishing in the northwest Atlantic as well as in the rest of the world.
What is the best way of achieving that? The best way is by getting 180 nations on your side, not having 180 nations oppose you because you want to adopt some premature cowboy tactics and unilaterally extend management controls in an area.


MARINE ATLANTIC
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
After three years of disastrous fishing activities the incomes of Labrador fishermen have gone consistently down, yet the increase in rates of Marine Atlantic which is their supply line in the summer have gone consistently up. This year there is another 15 per cent or 20 per cent, at least, increase in rates of Marine Atlantic.
In view of the fact the government may very soon I hope announce a compensation program for the fishery on the Atlantic coast, will he now order Marine Atlantic to freeze its rates at last year's level on behalf of the fishermen on the Labrador coast?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. At this stage I would like to invite him to meet with the CEO and other officers of Marine Atlantic so some of the misconceptions arising out of its tabling of its recent structure can be ironed out.
In fact, the minimum charge on small shipments is going to remain at $25 a piece. If the shippers are prepared to work with Marine Atlantic, they will find they have ways to minimize the increases because what Marine Atlantic is really trying to recover here is not full recovery. It is $600,000 out of the $28 million in subsidies we have been providing it over the past few years.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, a short supplemental. I met last week with the Chamber of Commerce in Goose Bay and I have talked to small businessmen along the Labrador coast. They are not fooled by the snow job the minister has been given by Marine Atlantic. There is going to be an increase in rates, at least 15 per cent to 20 per cent.

Routine Proceedings
Will he listen to the people there? Will he listen to the businessmen there and freeze Marine Atlantic rates this year at last year's level?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I hope the member opposite agrees with the mandate of Marine Atlantic to manage the taxpayers' money properly. It has put in a structure that will do that without overcharging for small shipments. Again, I invite him to meet not with the Chamber of Commerce or others, but the CEO of Marine Atlantic who have put this new rate structure in place and dispel many of the misconceptions that have arisen from that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Edwards (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 12 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, without amendment.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors, and the Status of Women on breast cancer.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



TRANSPORT


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I move:
That in relation to their study of the competitiveness and viability
of Canada's ports, eight members and two staff of the Standing
Committee on Transport be authorized to travel to Halifax, Nova
Scotia, to attend the Conference on Canadian Ports Competitiveness
from June 16 to 18, 1992.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I have five petitions again today dealing with the Court Challenges Program.
Canadians have made it known that they are very supportive of this program which gave access to the courts for those of us, groups and individuals, who wanted to test our constitutional right to come to court dealing with freedom of expression, the question of language rights and equality rights.
These petitioners would like to have the Court Challenges Program reinstated. It was abolished by the government some months ago. It was not a very expensive program at about 10 cents per year per Canadian. It was a very good program. In times of reviewing our constitutional arrangements, I think it would be appropriate if Canadians had access to public funds to defend themselves in front of the courts when their language rights and their equality rights are questioned.
Therefore, these people humbly ask the Parliament of Canada to reinstate the Court Challenges Program.


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by 27 constituents of Sarnia-Lambton. The constituents call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for (a) a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the
June 15, 1992

government; (b) the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by, one, a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with, two, a majority vote in the majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.
I thank these constituents for their interest in our constitutional amendment process.


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present petitions that have been signed by many constituents of my riding of Sarnia-Lambton.
These petitions were organized and distributed by the Kinsmen and Kinettes of Sarnia. They urge all Canadians to take pride in a united, strong and independent Canada by participating in the Proud to be Canadian project. This project is an opportunity to nurture a positive life-long relationship with our heritage and our flag and to encourage stronger ties among all Canadians for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles and promote our tremendous pride in being Canadians.
I thank the Kinsmen and Kinettes of Sarnia for their Proud to be Canadian project and thank the many people of Sarnia-Lambton who signed the petition.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, calling upon the Government of Canada to reinstate the Court Challenges Program. These are residents from the province of New Brunswick who have signed the first petition.
The second petition is from residents primarily of the province of Ontario again calling upon the Government of Canada to reinstate the Court Challenges Program which they believe to be a very important program for Canadians to have at their disposal.
I would hope that the government would see the wisdom of the suggestion and would rescind its earlier decision to cancel this most worthy program.
Routine Proceedings NATIONAL REFERENDUM


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I wish at this time to present a petition which was started by my friend Bob Newell in Waterdown. It has about 50 signatures.
It is virtually the same language as the petition of my hon. friend from Sarnia-Lambton.
It is asking for a referendum of the people, binding upon Parliament, to accept or to reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government to be determined by a majority vote in a majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.
As is duty bound, these petitioners will forever pray. I know that they are all Canadians to the core as I am and I pray too that the outcome of a referendum, if necessary, will mean the preservation of this country as we know it.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have three different petitions to table today.
The first one is regarding the subject of individuals within the bodies of their mothers. The petitioners state that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Parliament and Government of Canada and that the charter in article 15(1) states:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right
to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.
They call upon Parliament to call on the government to enact laws which protect individuals while they reside within the bodies of their mothers.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, the second petition is about the closing of postal station 'B' in my riding of Parkdale-High Park.
The constituents state that they have heard that postal station 'B' is going to be closed whereas they believe that as Canadians they have the right to efficient mail service and that the service rendered by postal station 'B' is very important to the local businesses, seniors and those wishing to mail parcels or use priority post.

Routine Proceedings
They call upon Parliament to call upon the minister responsible for Canada Post to review the decision to close postal station 'B' and instead renew the lease and ensure the service remains at the Ritchie Street location.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, the third petition is three different petitions on the same subject. To save time I will put them all together regarding the human rights violations in Rwanda.
These petitioners state that the issue in the current armed uprising in Rwanda is not an ethnic conflict as the current Rwanda regime and its backers would like the world to believe. Rather the real issue is the fact that Rwandan people are rebelling against a military dictatorship.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Canadian government to apply pressure on the Rwandan regime to immediately stop killing innocent Rwandans. They urge the Canadian government to support the EEC resolution on Rwanda, issued on February 20, 1992.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting to the House of Commons a petition signed by residents, many of them and most of them senior citizens from my riding.
They point out that hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens live below the poverty line and particularly that 80 per cent of single women over the age of 65 live in poverty.
They are complaining of the 37 cents increase in April on their Old Age Security cheque. They are petitioning this government and this House to ensure pension benefits for seniors that would allow them not only to have their ends met, but to also allow them to have dignity at the same time.
We are asking this government to review this policy and to think that it was a shame to send a 37 cents increase per month per senior citizen.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions on the same subject representing about 90 people in my constituency and elsewhere.
The petitioners represent dump truckers which have little or no legal means of enforcing prevailing rates on the 'stated in contracts'.
They call upon this government to enact legislation for adoption of minimum rates schedules for dump trucks on federal projects at rates not less than the minimum truck haul rate and conditions set by each province with a federal project that is to be undertaken.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition concerning the Court Challenges Program.
This program has helped many individuals and minority groups to clarify their constitutional language and equality rights before the courts.
The elimination of this program represents an incalculable loss for social justice and equality in this country.
Parliament should consider the option of reinstating the Court Challenges Program, which gives all Canadians equal access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present to the House a further petition spearheaded and gathered by Mrs. Eileen MacDonald from my riding. It is signed by around 70 residents of North York, Don Mills, East York, Toronto and Scarborough.
It calls upon the Parliament of Canada to enact legislation providing for a referendum binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government, the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by a majority vote of total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with a majority vote in a majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.
This is a further petition presented through the hard work of Mrs. MacDonald. I am sure that the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada will ensure that this petition is granted.
June 15, 1992


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce a petition signed by many people in the national capital region. These people are complaining about the unfair gasoline prices in the Ottawa-Carleton region.
As you know, gasoline prices in the Toronto area are much lower than in our region. This issue has really been of concern to many residents in my area. They look at it as discrimination against the consumers in this region and are calling on the federal government to take action on this issue.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 100 people from Winnipeg who are very concerned about the treatment of the Tamils in north and east Sri Lanka.
Many of these people have had first-hand experience in dealing with this situation. They call upon the Government of Canada to intervene and to stop the flagrant human rights violations committed by the government of Sri Lanka and to ensure basic food, medicine and fuel supplies be permitted to reach the Tamils in the north and east of Sri Lanka.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition today signed by several hundred people from the province of Prince Edward Island.
It states that all provincial ministries of transportation and departments of highways have long recognized the validity and stabilizing effect of establishing minimum rates and cites a base for their own contracts involving dump truck work.
The lack of such minimum rates in federal projects leads to ruin of such prevailing rates. It creates predatory pricing and opens the door for other abuses.
The truckers have little or no legal means of enforcing prevailing rates unless stated in the contracts.
In the interests of keeping a viable and meaningful dump truck industry, these petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation for the adoption of a minimum rate schedule for dump trucks on federal projects at
Routine Proceedings
rates not less than the minimum truck haul rates and conditions set for each province where a federal project is to be undertaken.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition concerning the proposed closure of light stations on the Pacific coast.
The petitioners request that the Government of Canada having decided not to close these lighthouses implement the terms of The Future Role of Light Stations report and that it return the roughly $1 million a year of federal funding removed from these light stations and the person years that were removed in anticipation of closures.
According to the petitioners, this would restore the safety and viability of light stations as a major component of the safety net on the coast of British Columbia.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 would like to present a petition which relates to the Canadian government applying pressure on the regime in Rwanda to immediately stop killing innocent Rwandans.
The petitioners urge the Canadian government to stop economic aid and other forms of assistance to the current Rwandan regime. They urge the Canadian government to support the EEC resolution on Rwanda issued February 20, 1992.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 294 and 314.
Mr. Jordan: For the years 1990 and 1991, have any departments, agencies or crown corporations contributed funding to the Legal Education and Action Fund and, if so, which ones and in what amounts?

Government Orders


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I am informed as follows:
Department of the Secretary of State:
1990	$257,498
1991	$257,198
*Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada:
1990/91 $4,000 1991/92 $20,000
*Amounts available by fiscal year only.


Mrs. Mitchell: What is the total cost of television ads produced for Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada dealing with Canadian citizenship, entitled "Citizenship, Thke it to Heart" and what was the date and value of this contract, and to whom was it awarded?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: The advertisement was produced by the firms Gingko of Toronto and Everest of Montreal for $408,000. The placement cost for the ad was $2,476,504. The television ad started April 12 and was aired until May 3, 1992.
The total cost of the "Citizenship, Thke It to Heart" advertisement was $2,884,504.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 218 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 218 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fulton: Since 1984, has the government established paid informant programs and, if so, (a) for which departments, agencies (b) at what cost (c) what are the names and positions of responsible officials (d) for what purpose are the informants used (e) what types of benefits do the informants receive?
Return tabled.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual assault), be read the third time and passed.
Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I introduced amendments to the Criminal Code regarding sexual assault on December 12, 1991.
The driving force behind the Bill C-49 amendments was the need to restore protection for victims of sexual assault in the wake of the Seaboyer decision which struck down former section 276 of the Criminal Code, commonly referred to as the rape shield provision.
Bill C-49 received second reading on April 8,1992 and was referred to a legislative committee for detailed review.

I was struck by the favourable reception given by members to Bill C-49. The same attitude and co-operation were evident during discussions before the legislative committee.
I have said many times, in response to questions about the wording of certain provisions of this bill, that the legislative committee was the appropriate venue for fine tuning the text to reflect accurately the general principles and substance of the bill. I am very grateful to the committee for the attention and care it gave to analysing the text of the bill, and I am also veiy grateful to the many witnesses who came to offer their comments and advice and tell us about their concerns.

June 15, 1992

The legislative committee heard a large number of witnesses, including representatives of the Canadian Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyers Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, the Disabled Women's Network, the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres. The committee also received briefs prepared by interest groups, individuals and academics.
Despite the extremely diverse interests represented by this broad range of witnesses, the principle of the bill was very well received by all. Comments and concerns tended to concentrate on a few similar aspects of the bill and the amendments proposed by the legislative committee are in direct response to the concerns expressed while the bill was being examined. I think these amendments have done much to improve the bill.

Before I begin to sketch out the amendments made by the legislative committee, I would like to set the record straight for those who have been following the media coverage of this issue by making some general comments about what Bill C-49 is not.
Bill C-49 does not outlaw sexual activity after a few glasses of wine. It does not require that written consent forms be signed before sexual activity, or that a third party be present as an observer to ensure that consent was given. It does not prohibit sexual activity between an employer and an employee, nor does it permit a person to wake up in the morning and revoke the consent given to the previous evening's sexual encounter.
This may seem like a frivolous thing to say about the legislation but it has been extraordinary in my mind to see some of the commentary and caricature of the very serious intent of this legislation that, in fact, makes it necessary to make those kinds of comments about what the bill is not.
On the contrary, Bill C-49 deals with three fundamental issues regarding sexual assault. The admissibility of evidence of a sexual assault and the complainant's sexual history and the applicable procedure, the definition of
Government Orders
consent, and the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent. Amendments made by the legislative committee touch upon all three of the key features of Bill C-49.
With respect to the consent provisions, the committee amended three subsections which set out circumstances where no consent is obtained.
The subsection dealing with incapacity and intoxication was revised to delete the phrase "by reason of intoxication or other condition". The paragraph now reads: "No consent is obtained where the complainant is incapable of consenting". The revision puts the emphasis where it belongs, on incapacity rather than on the reason for the incapacity. It states the obvious. A person does not consent where they are incapable of consenting.
Section 273.1(2)(c) was revised to avoid the possible interpretation that an abuse of a position of trust or authority would exist where two people involved in such a relationship engaged in sexual activity, that is, to avoid the criticism this provision prohibited sex between an employer and employee or professor and student.
The key issue here is the abuse of the position. The revised wording will provide that no consent is obtained where the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority.
The revision adds the requirement that the accused induce the complainant to engage in the activity and maintains the requirement of abuse of the position. The word "power" has been added to cover relationships not captured by the phrase "trust or authority".
Section 273.1(2)(e) was revised to avoid the criticism that consent could be revoked after the fact. For example, the next morning a person could claim that they no longer consented to the previous evening's sexual encounter. Although the law would never have permitted such a retrospective revocation, in the interests of clarity the provision has been amended. The revised wording will provide that no consent is obtained where the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity expresses by words or conduct a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity. That lack of consent of course only applies to the continuation of the activity for which there is no consent.

Government Orders
With respect to the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent, the Canadian Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyers Association and the Civil Liberties Association argue that the requirement that the accused take all reasonable steps in the circumstances known to the accused at the time to ascertain consent in order to assert the defence imposed a standard which would be impossible for the accused to meet. However, the central idea that an accused should have done something to ascertain consent in order to argue that he honestly believed the complainant had consented was not disputed.
The committee, therefore, amended the provision to delete the word "all". The revised provision will state: "It is not a defence that the accused believed that the complainant consented or the accused did not take reasonable steps in the circumstances known to the accused at the time to ascertain that the complainant was consenting".
I believe this sets a standard which protects the complainant, the standard that was suggested by the Canadian Bar Association, "or any steps", we all agreed was too low. At the same time, it also respects the fundamental principle of criminal justice and that is the need to have a guilty mind or mens rea in order to establish criminal culpability.
I would also like to point out that this defence arises only after the Crown has proved that the complainant did not, in fact, consent to the sexual activity.

The legislative committee has amended the provisions relating to the prohibition of the publication of the judge's decision and reasons.
These amendments came in response to concerns expressed by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Journalists, as ardent defenders of freedom of the press. They also respond to questions raised by various women's groups which maintain that the complainant's right of privacy should be protected, but the public should know how the law is applied.
According to the amendments made by the legislative committee, where the evidence is judged to be admissible, the judge's determination and reasons may be
published. Where the evidence is judged to be inadmissible, the judge's determination and reasons may be published if the judge so orders, after taking into account the complainant's right of privacy and the interests of justice. The judge who initially decides that a hearing should be held to determine whether the evidence is admissible may, after taking into account the complainant's right of privacy and the interests of justice, order publication of the decision.
In addition to the amendments made to the clauses of the bill which I have highlighted, the legislative committee carefully considered the contents of the preamble. I attach a great deal of importance to the preamble since it states our collective intentions as members of Parliament and as legislators in reforming our sexual assault laws.
The legislative committee has amended the preamble to refer specifically to the prevalence of sexual assault against women and children. In addition, the order of the paragraphs has been changed to put greater emphasis on the protection of charter rights, which will now be in paragraph 3. Some minor changes in the wording have also been made.

We now have before us a considerably improved and readily comprehensible bill that aims to identify and codify the rules of law for determining the admissibility of evidence relating to the complainant's sexual history, a bill that fills in the gaps in the former rape shield provisions which caused them to be struck down.
Procedural safeguards for victims of sexual assault have been reinstated. The complainant is no longer obliged to testify at the preliminary hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence relating to the complainant's sexual history; the hearing will be held in camera. Publication of the judge's determination and reasons may be prohibited in certain circumstances. The current provisions of the Criminal Code will prohibit publication of information revealing the identity of the complainant.
These amendments are based on present day reality and on the principles set forth by the Supreme Court of Canada. They take into account the fundamental principles of trial procedure and admissibility of evidence.



I would like again to thank all members of the House, particularly the members of the legislative committee, for their comments and careful consideration. The provisions of Bill C-49 will ensure the much needed improvements to benefit sexual assault victims while respecting the rights of accused persons to defend themselves against allegations of sexual assaults.
I would also like to emphasize that during the period of time since this bill was tabled in the House, particularly over the period of time when my colleagues on the legislative committee were hearing witnesses and discussing the bill and generating public debate, I have had an inordinate number of comments made by members of the public across this country with respect to this legislation. I have been very gratified to see that irrespective of gender and irrespective of region, Canadians feel very comforted by this piece of legislation. I have had men thank me for this piece of legislation and for the law relating to sexual assault, and women who feel very strongly gratified and validated that the reality of life as they live it in Canada and their concerns have been reflected in this legislation.
I want to conclude by again thanking my colleagues in the House, the critics and the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys over there who has played such a fundamental role along with his colleagues. Our colleagues in the New Democratic Party I believe at the moment are involved in a very important press conference on another issue relating to women. They have been very, very helpful as well. I want to thank them again for their care and consideration in dealing with what was in many ways a contentious and sensitive issue. They did it in a way that I believe represented the finest of the parliamentary tradition. I believe that we have made an important statement. I believe that we are dealing with an important provision of law that is respectful of the fundamental traditions of criminal justice that we all uphold but, at the same time, is a law for the last decade of the 21st century and truly enfranchises all Canadians.
Therefore, I want to again say thank you and to say that it will be many years before I forget the second reading debate on this legislation and the kinds of comments made by members in this House. They represented a quantum leap in the enfranchisement of Canadian women and the ability of parliamentarians of both
Government Orders
founding genders of this country to respect and understand the reality of all Canadians. I thank them very much for that experience.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to debate today on Bill C-49.
I want to share with the minister my feelings and my satisfaction that we have here a good piece of legislation. There are some points, some things about it, that I had hoped would have been changed and I will refer to some of those. Basically, as the minister has said, we have made a major leap forward with this legislation.
I do feel that we have to have some idea in Canada, everyone in this country has to be aware, of what we are trying to do with this legislation. There have been a lot of things said by various members of the bar, by other segments of society, which indicated to me that they really did not know the depth of the problem that exists, not only in Canada but throughout the world, and the disadvantaged position in which women find themselves in this country and throughout every country in the world.
What we have to do here is ask if we are going to accept that. Are we going to say that we want to keep legal niceties at the risk of putting women in a position in which they will constantly feel fear, will constantly question the justice system, will constantly ask members of Parliament and other members in authority in this country when they are going to realize that women do not have an equal position in this country?
We have talked about job equality. We have talked about equal pay for work of equal value. This is an area in which men in Canada do not realize that women have had a very, very detrimental position as far as their rights within the law are concerned. We have not realized that the law has actually put women in a very derogatory position as far as their rights are concerned.
What we have to look at is what we want to achieve. We want to achieve for women in this country the right to be able to bring action against sexual assault. We want every Canadian to feel that sexual assault is not something that is going to happen or that there is nothing that they can do about it. We have to erase the feeling that sexual assault is a part of growing up, that it is a part of living and there is nothing to be done, that you just have to endure it. That is not the way it has to be in Canada. That is not the way it should be in Canada.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
Before 1983, a woman who brought a charge of sexual a bold move on the part of the Minister of Justice. It is a assault was questioned without, in some cases, any very difficult thing to do. It is very important because this bounds whatsoever on her past sexual history, not only is the way we can state in the legislation exactly what with regard to the accused, but generally speaking on all consent is going to be. her sexual activity that the other side could conjure up. It would get to the point at which the woman was actually
the accused because she was placed in such an uncom- We will be able to say that women in this country have fortable position within the court structure that no means by which they know what their rights are. The woman wanted to bring an action of sexual assault. men will have to learn this act and realize that things
such as extreme intoxication of the woman are not consent. That is very important.
Fortunately in 1983 there was an amendment to the Criminal Code in section 276 in which it was stated that you could only bring evidence of the past sexual history when: one, the Crown opened up the area by bringing in allegations or information on past sexual history; two, where it was alleged that the accused did not commit the assault; and three, where the accused was saying that it was important that this information come forward because there was other sexual activity that happened just before, just after or about the same time so that it was an integral part of his or her case.
This greatly reduced the trauma that women felt in bringing sexual assault cases before the courts. Unfortunately or fortunately, whatever way you want to look at it, we could not maintain section 276. It is also fortunate that within our system of law in Canada our courts are looking after the rights of all Canadians. They decided that section 276 could not stand a charter challenge and that it contravened section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was in August 1991.
Then the Minister of Justice brought forward this bill, Bill C-49, last December. As the minister said, we had a very good debate on second reading and then it went to legislative committee. There were some changes made. The bill is a much better bill.
The bill we have today does three things mainly. It provides for strict guidelines in determining the admissibility of past sexual history as far as the evidence in court is concerned. It outlines clearly the procedure which must be followed in admitting such evidence.
It also defines the notion of consent to sexual activity. This idea of defining consent is a very important one and
That is going to mean that a lot of people who go out and party and get intoxicated are now going to realize that their actions are going to be under severe scrutiny if the complainant states that he or she did not give consent. That is a major step forward. It is important that the ramifications in this bill receive a clear screening and that we educate Canadians as to what this bill really does. It is an important bill. It is important for Canadians to realize exactly what it says.
One of the aspects which raised concern initially was that there may be no consent if the complainant is incapable of consenting by reason of intoxication or other conditions. We have since in the legislative committee taken out the words "intoxication or other conditions". That does not, however, mean that intoxication has been taken out of the bill as far as prohibiting consent is concerned.
If a person is intoxicated, severely intoxicated and really would not know what she or he is doing, consent cannot be assumed. It will have to be determined by the courts whether he or she gave consent to the sexual activity. That is very important.
In the next section the minister says that honest but mistaken belief in consent is not a defence. We mentioned the fact the accused did not take "all reasonable steps" in the circumstances known to the accused at the time to ascertain if the complainant was consenting.
You look at that and you say well that is just not reasonable. If a person is before the courts and they are accused, then evidently they did not take all reasonable steps. You cannot have it as a criteria that the accused took all reasonable steps.
June 15, 1992

Second, who is to say what all reasonable steps are. In each case a judge will determine whether there is something else the accused should have considered. If every time there is a trial, a judge or defence counsel states this is something else that could have been considered, the case would have to be thrown out, because here is a new criteria of reasonable steps that was not taken into consideration.
While there are concerns among some of the women's groups that the bill is no longer strong enough, I believe this amendment was made in the best interests of the legislation and of really protecting this legislation from a charter challenge.
There were groups which said that instead of saying all reasonable steps we should say any reasonable steps. That would go too much the other way. We would then be weakening the bill. By just saying reasonable steps, it would leave it to the court and I think that is a very fanway of doing it.
There are some things about the bill, however, I have difficulty with. One is that the question of whether the complainant's past sexual history is to come before the courts is going to be decided in what is really a voir dire. It is going to be a hearing within the main trial itself, at which time the judge will decide in closed court if the evidence is or is not suitable to the nature of the case and if it has a bearing on the accused's case.
The question is, what is going to be considered as relevant? That has to be left up to the judge and that is important. If the judge determines that the past sexual history should be allowed in and it is in the interests of the accused that this be brought forward, the judge can also then decide whether the press should be able to report on that evidence. That was another change in second reading.
My concern here is that the complainant is not compelled to testify in this hearing. It may be a problem as far as the courts are concerned as they may feel the accused is not able to get a fair hearing because the complainant does not have to testify. That is not to say that in most cases the complainant's testimony would be important. It may very well not be important in most cases but in certain cases it may be necessary.
I am also concerned because if the complainant is not being compelled in certain instances to testify, there is
Government Orders
going to be a lot of hearsay evidence brought into the hearing.
Another thing that concerns me is that in the hearing the judge has to consider society's interests. I honestly feel in a court of law there is to be one major objective, and that is the innocence or guilt of the accused. Under no circumstances should we be trying to decide anything else.
When we are talking about legislation, we are talking about society's interests. Right now debating this bill, we are discussing society's interests. That is very important. We have to look at society's interests. It is a fundamental obligation of members of Parliament when we are discussing legislation. We are now looking at society's interests.
When the Crown prosecutor decides whether he or she wants to proceed and on what grounds, under what section of the Criminal Code for instance, the Crown prosecutor is looking at society's interests and taking them into consideration.
When the decision of innocence or guilt is brought forward, the judge will determine sentencing in society's interests. In the actual body of the trial or any hearing within the trial, to me it is not right to inject society's interests. That is not a fundamental factor in determining the innocence or guilt of the accused. The accused should not have to bear that hurdle. I feel that should not be in the legislation and frankly, it is harmful to the legislation.
I do feel there was one area in which we did not go far enough, not that the area is of vital importance legally because not everything that is in legislation has to have strict legal terminology and is only for legal purposes. We are saying in this bill, by the wording in the preamble, that we want to get our intentions to the judge and that we want the justice system to know about our feelings on why this bill is being presented and what we want to achieve as parliamentarians.
The government stated that very eloquently in the preamble. The language is very good and it is very clear. I think it is going to be helpful. The minister has said that the preamble is not going to be a part of the Criminal Code. That is fair enough. It will presumably be in the commentary in the Criminal Code. That is going to be helpful as well.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
Women's groups that came before us said that we did not really understand the problems of disabled women, the problems of visible minorities, of sex trade workers, of those who are under pressure because their immigration hearing is pending, or because they are in a vulnerable position because of their employment. They explained to us that we do not realize that these people are not able to convince a judge or a policeman or somebody else in the criminal justice system that they did not consent more easily than a white woman would. What judges who are mainly white middle-aged men see in a white woman is their wife or their daughter or somebody like that. They do not see that when the person is from a visible minority. They do not as readily give the benefit of the doubt to somebody who was not a visible minority.
We know what the law says. The law says that everybody is treated equally before the courts, that justice applies equally to all Canadians. We know that. We have heard it, we have had it told to us, we have read it and that may be the case in most instances. That is something we want to believe. We have seen it. They have been assaulted by policemen who feel because that person is a visible minority, it will not matter if they are sexually assaulted. We have seen cases of that. We know that the law does not apply equally.
We want to overcome that. We want to redress that problem. We want to say that consent should not be implied because the person is a sex trade worker, because the person is disabled, because the person is a visible minority, because the person is under pressure of an immigration hearing or because of their employment. We want that in the bill. They may say it is not necessary but we feel it is.
After hearing these women I frankly feel it is necessary because there is obviously a problem. I think it is important not only to these women but also to people in homosexual relationships, and where we in Canada believe the rights of people have to be upheld. We also feel that if Canadians feel they are not being given equal treatment before the law then we have to bring forward a statement that would help these people see that the law is going to be equally applied to them.
This is a very important request. I know the minister thinks there should be something done in this regard. I
am hoping that something will be done even though it is not in the bill.
The education of the members of the judiciary is very important. I think that should be done. I was hoping the government would bring forward an amendment at report stage that that would deal with this, but unfortunately it did not.
I leave it with the minister and I ask her to please consider this concern that many Canadians have. I ask her, in ways that she may think expedient, to address this concern.
The concern does not end there. This bill is, as I have stated, a major advance as far as women's rights in Canada are concerned. We have to do considerably more. We need new pornography laws. As a result of the Butler decision the minister has said that she hopes to bring forward new pornography laws in the fall, hopefully in September, particularly with respect to child pornography.
These are all parts of what we want to achieve. The question of urban violence is a major concern in this country.
What we have to realize is that in this country women have not had the same feeling about protecting themselves that men have seemed to feel that women should have.
They do not realize, and I have said this before, that a woman leaving a bus stop, getting off a bus after dark in any size Canadian city these days is in constant fear as she walks to her home or to her apartment. That fear does not end upon the woman going into the building. The fear can exist that someone on the elevator, or someone on the very floor on which she lives, could assault her. This fear is constant and I do not think many men in this country realize this.
Frankly I think it is this bill and legislation such as this that will help to address this question.
It is really not satisfactory when we realize that in this country one woman in four is sexually assaulted. Of those one in four that is sexually assaulted only one in 10 will actually report that sexual assault. That is largely because the woman does not think that her concerns are going to be taken seriously by the judicial system. She feels that she is just really letting herself in for a very

difficult time when all of the past sexual activity is going to be brought up in open court.
We should not be convicting people who are not guilty, but we should be making sure that those who are guilty are going to be convicted. Not every time, there is no way you can assure that that is going to happen. The circumstances have to be such that the woman will come before the court to lay a charge and that the structure will indicate that there is a path to follow, that there is a means of bringing forward the evidence and that a conviction actually can be brought forward, certainly more frequently than once every 20 cases when it comes to trial.
We had some concern in the legislative committee. There were people proposing that this bill was not going to be charter proof on the basis that it did not differentiate between a sexual assault that was done through the mistaken belief that the accused had consented, on the one hand, and a sexual assault that was premeditated and done with full planning and intent to injure on the other. There were those who said that it is unconstitutional if you cannot ensure that those who do something through negligence or by accident do not receive a lighter sentence than those who commit an offence intentionally. One case that comes to mind is the Martineau case where Chief Justice Lamer gave the decision. He stated that it was a constitutional principle that those who cause harm intentionally must be punished more severely than those who cause harm unintentionally.
I asked the minister and officials of the Department of Justice and they were able to assure us that that principle would be upheld. They gave the assurance that he who commits an assault through the mistaken belief that he had consent would not be treated as harshly as somebody who intentionally committed the assault. I feel that that is important and I have every reason to believe that the Department of Justice has looked at this point.
In closing, I feel that this bill is a major step forward. We have done something here which is going to greatly correct the imbalance that women have suffered as far as their equal rights before the judicial system are concerned. These were not intentional oversights; it was just the way the law was. It seemed to indicate to women that they were going to be victims themselves if they were
Government Orders
willing to withstand the harsh cross-examination on past sexual history. We now have a clear idea of what constitutes consent. There are those who will say that this is too rigorous, but I want to say that we have the definition and that is very very important. Because we know what we want to do, because it is stated in the bill, I think that this will be a major step forward. This is a good bill. We are doing something here that really has needed to be done for a long time.
I think this is going to be accepted by Canadians, both men and women, throughout the country as a major step forward.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of my party, the New Democratic Party, to make some remarks on this bill.
As the House knows, in committee and in the debate the major spokesperson for the NDP was my colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby, who is our spokesperson on women's issues. She will be speaking later in the debate today. I rose because as my party's justice critic I wanted to make some specific comments on the bill.
This is a bill which we are supporting, a bill on which we worked very hard in committee to make better. We succeeded somewhat but in other parts we did not succeed. I will speak about that in a moment.
It is an important bill, one of the most important bills of this Parliament. I want to be honest and straightforward here and give a little bit of a personal reaction if I might. Before I do so, I congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, the Liberal critic who spoke eloquently today. He spoke especially eloquently at second reading of the debate.
That leads me to my confession. I come at this issue as a former criminal lawyer, as a prosecutor and especially as defence counsel. I guess I have the focus that the criminal bar has on the accused and the rights of the accused. It was put well by the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. We were taught the old saying that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be found guilty. Notice the word "men" that is used in the expression.
Where the criminal bar comes in, the defence bar, is a real focus on protecting the rights of the accused. I came at the debate with support of the bill but with some scepticism about the bill. I had an opportunity to listen. As Tommy Douglas used to say when people heckled

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
him: "The good Lord gave you two ears and only one mouth. That means you should listen twice as much as you speak". Maybe we should take that advice more in politics.
I had the opportunity since my colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby was the lead spokesperson on the bill to junior, if you like, in legal terms, to be the kind of second lawyer or the second string part of the team here. I got a chance to listen.
What I heard was remarkable, in three areas. One was in the House in the debate on second reading. Second was in committee and third in the level of public debate that we had in the country in the papers, on radio and television.
Let me talk about the House because it was a remarkable debate. There was a clear view expressed in this House of a determination to change the present law, more than any other debate I have seen in a long time. It was really a wonderful debate. It was wonderful in the sense that people poured out emotions and spoke from the heart, especially the women members of the House.
I learned that violence against women and children is epidemic in our society. I knew that, but I had not had it expressed in the same kind of way it was expressed in the House. That male violence seems to be rooted in the inequality in our society. That inequality reinforces the violence and that is something we should all think about.
The statistics are dramatic. One in four women are victims of sexual assault, half before the age of 17. One hundred and ten women are murdered every year by a male intimate, 110 women. One in eight women is battered by a partner. The majority of women in Canada are afraid to walk the streets of our cities and towns.
You may say: "You should have heard that before". Coming at things from a male point of view, especially a white, middle class, WASPish male, sometimes you are not aware of that. You are aware but you do not really feel it. You can walk down the street at night. You can park your car in a dark garage with no problem. What is the problem?
When I heard my fellow members of the House express their concerns and feelings, it made quite an impact on me, and I hope it made an impact on Canadians.
In the committee the National Action Committee on the Status Women in a first-rate brief said: "We believe from our experience that the majority of women have experienced some form of male violence if we include sexual harassment, sexual assault, incest, and battering". That is staggering. I was listening to that in committee.
Some of the other evidence or words that I heard were that sexist and racist stereotypes and myths promote sexual assault and prevent access to justice for survivors. Men are socialized to become aggressors in sexual relations, women to be passive and submissive.
I remember these comments in the House where women members said that women are divided into good girls and bad girls, with the bad girls being less worthy of legal protection. Aboriginal women experience a significantly higher level of violence than other women. More than 40 per cent of women with disabilities have been sexually assaulted. Prostitutes experience an average of five rapes a year each. These were staggering-


Coline M. Campbell: More than that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My colleague says "more". The evidence that came out in committee was pretty staggering. I guess what I am saying is that I was listening to that in the House.
Then we went into committee and we had a number of briefs in the committee. Again, according to the rape crisis centres in the country, only one in 10 women who report sexual assault to the crisis centres get access to the criminal justice system, yet 27,000 sexual assaults were reported to the police in 1990.
A 1977 study found that 70 per cent of rapes reported to the police never reached trial and only 10 per cent of the original charges resulted in conviction. One would like to think that things have dramatically changed but a 1990 study shows that 15 per cent of sexual assaults reported to police were considered unfounded compared to 4.3 per cent for break and enter reports.
June 15, 1992

I had confirmed to me in committee what I knew before, but I never had it confirmed in such a systematic way. Sexual assault is the most under-reported and under-convicted crime against a person.
There you have it. There you have the need for this law. That is a situation where a crime is not being reported because women are afraid to come forward. They are not listened to and so on. They have to go through a hassle in the trial including, before we had passed the previous law, their whole being coming under attack, their own sexual history. In fact instead of being the victim they become almost like the accused. That is rough. That is the problem. That is why this bill is here.
I should say that I am disappointed that the government did not accept the amendment introduced by my colleague, the member for New Westminster-Burnaby, to specifically name doubly disadvantaged women. Sixty diverse women's organizations came together to work on the wording and finally agreed on amendments that all women felt comfortable with. I believe their perspective is not reflected in the bill.
In some ways the bill is still a bill for white, middle-class-this time-women. We have forgotten about visible minorities, disabled people, and other groups of women who are particularly hard hit. We have introduced amendments on behalf of the New Democratic Party to address the concerns of these particular groups.
Nevertheless, the bill is a step forward from the sexual assault law that we now have, in which men can claim that they have an honest but reasonable belief that there was consent and that is good enough to get them off no matter how hard the woman fought, what she said, or whether there was really any consent. I have already said that the number of sexual assaults that were unreported and the rate of conviction were very low.
The law also states for the first time that consent cannot be given by a third party. A man was acquitted of sexual assault despite a clear lack of consent on the part of the woman in the case because her husband told the man that she liked rough sex. Husbands and pimps can no longer encourage other men to rape women and get away with it under the provisions of this law.
In other words, an accused cannot come into court and say that this other man, this third person said that she
Government Orders
was willing. That is not consent; you have to ask her. That sounds logical, does it not? It sounds simple but it is a big change in the law and it is in this bill. That is one of the reasons we are supporting this bill.
The bill defines an abuse of trust and authority as an assault. If a woman is forced into sex by virtue of the fact that the man is a police officer, or has other power over her, that is now unacceptable in the eyes of the law. Again, that is an amendment that was a long time coming.
There is a preamble in this bill, making it a different sort of bill. It makes explicit that the Parliament of Canada wants to see justice served by protecting the rights of the accused as well as the victims. This is something new, and it is a good direction for Parliament. We are looking at the rights of victims as well.
It clearly states what this law is for and why it is being enacted. We hope this will prevent the misuse of sexual assault laws, such as the sexual assault charges levelled against an HIV positive woman in my own province of British Columbia who had sex with two men without condoms. She was charged. We should look at the intent of this law, the courts should look at it, the prosecuting officers should look at it, and it is set out in the preamble of the bill.
Under this bill a man cannot rape an unconscious or incapacitated woman and get away with it, as in several unfortunate and painful cases in the past. There was a case in the Northwest Territories in which a woman was raped who was incapacitated by alcohol. The judge said: "Well, if there is a pair of hips there, that is asking for it".
There are some things we should watch with regard to the bill, and the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys considered them. We should be watching the media provisions, the reaction of the court in terms of whether the bill is charter proof, the development of the cases, the conviction rate and so on to determine whether the bill makes any difference.
I said when I started that I listened to speeches in the House and in the committee, and I mentioned the level of debate in the public. I recall waking up one morning-,I was trying to sleep in-and listening to the

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
Gzowski show on CBC Radio. Who did I hear on it but the Minister of Justice debating with Clay Ruby, a distinguished lawyer in Toronto and a very good friend of mine.
Mr. Ruby and I handled our first case together in Yorkville in the hippie days in Toronto. He is a very articulate and experienced lawyer and this was an articulate debate. The Minister of Justice certainly held her own, and perhaps did even better than hold her own.
I think the Minister of Justice would agree that there was a high level of debate in the public. The minister wrote a letter to the editor. There was a high level of debate in that. There were replies, especially in The Globe and Mail. The matter was treated seriously. It was treated seriously in editorials.
I know that J. J. Camp, president of the Canadian Bar Association, made a real effort to try to get the rough edges off the bill but keep it an effective bill.
We have been lucky in this debate. It is the way Parliament should work. We will see what happens as the bill becomes law and it affects cases.
A strong rape law will not prevent sexual assault. I think we all recognize that. I wish it would. I wish all we had to do was pass this bill and that would be the end of the problem.
It may not even convince most women to report the crime of rape, although we genuinely hope they will. We hope the bill will help there. Eliminating the sexist and racist biases of our society as a whole and the judicial system in particular is necessary if we want to convince more women to report rape.
A strong "no means no" law is a beginning step toward the other changes that must be made. A strong "no means no" law would be a signal to judges, Crown counsels, defence lawyers, police, and most important, women, that Parliament intends justice to apply to women as well as men. A strong "no means no" law could help to change our culture in regard to sexuality.
That is why I am supporting this bill. I learned a lot in the debate. I think it was an excellent debate and an excellent process with regard to this bill. My colleague
from New Westminster-Burnaby will have other comments to make and I hope some of my other colleagues will speak in this debate this afternoon.
With that, I will conclude and urge that the House pass the bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria-Government expenditures; the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior-French colleges; the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands-The environment; the hon. member for Edmonton East-Petroleum industry.


Edna Anderson: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to stand today in support of Bill C-49, on the admissibility of evidence of sexual conduct.
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 case of Seaboyer and Gayme.
Section 276 prohibited the reception of evidence in sexual assault cases of a victim's previous sexual history except in three narrow circumstances. The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 276 overshot the mark in protecting complainants. It held that section 276 had the potential to exclude evidence relevant to the defence and was therefore a violation of sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada suggested guidelines to govern the receipt of evidence of past sexual activity in the absence of legislation.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was swiftly criticized by equality rights-seeking women's groups. It cannot be denied that although sexual assault can be committed against a man the overwhelming majority of victims are women and children. Women feel very vulnerable without the protections formerly provided by the law. While the Supreme Court suggested guidelines for the admission and use in evidence of a sexual assault victim's sexual activity the judgment was silent on a number of issues of great significance to victims of sexual assault.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-49 will clarify the law and the procedure regarding the admissibility of evidence of the victim's sexual activity and will restore essential protection for the victims.
Victim's rights advocates have long maintained that victims of crime are the forgotten persons in the criminal justice system. The amendments proposed in Bill C-49 are an excellent example of how law can effectively respond to victims of crime without jeopardizing in any way the fundamental rights of accused persons. The Bill C-49 amendments are also an excellent example of how the law must conform to current social realities.
The offence of rape was abolished in 1983 and replaced with three levels of sexual assault offences. The trauma suffered by rape victims cannot be so easily abolished nor can the image of the rape victim being once again victimized, this time by the court process.
The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly stated that striking down the so-called rape shield provision does not revive the old common law rules of evidence that permitted evidence of sexual conduct and condoned invalid inferences from it. The rules must be adapted to conform to current reality. The myths that the rape shield provisions sought to eradicate have no place in a rational and just system of law.
The Criminal Code amendments proposed in Bill C-49 will ensure that a rational and just system of law prevails. With respect to the admissibility of evidence of a sexual assault victim's sexual activity with any person, including the accused person, the proposed amendments include a general statement about the purposes for which such evidence may not be used, a new test for admissibility of such evidence, and detailed procedural provisions to govern determinations of admissibility.
The Supreme Court of Canada has unequivocally stated that 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.
Subsection 276(1) will put this principle into the Criminal Code to ensure that evidence that the complainant has engaged in sexual activity is not admissible
Government Orders
to support an inference that the complainant is more likely to consent or is less worthy of belief.
Bill C-49's single most important feature is the test for admissibility of evidence of a complainant's sexual activity. I would prefer not to use the term "new rape shield provision" but this may be unavoidable.
Proposed subsection 276(2) sets out the test for admissibility of evidence of a complainant's sexual activity with any person, including the accused. The amendment avoids the pitfalls of the former section 276 that was struck down. It does not set out a blanket exclusion with narrow exceptions that the evidence an accused seeks to introduce must fit into. The new test for admissibility places the responsibility of determining whether the evidence is admissible on the trial judge. The trial judge has the task of assessing whether the evidence meets the requirements of section 276.
The questions the judge must ask are: Is it evidence of specific instances of sexual activity? Is it relevant to an issue at trial? Does the evidence have significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice? If the answer is yes to all three questions then the evidence will be admissible.
The task of determining admissibility will not be a simple one. Trial judges will be required to give serious consideration to this issue.
Proposed subsection 276(3) sets out a range of considerations which a judge must take into account in determining whether evidence of a complainant's sexual activity is admissible in accordance with the new test of admissibility. These factors are intended to assist judges in the difficult task of assessing whether the evidence should be admitted. The mandatory factors ensure that all Canadian judges will be guided by the same considerations in exercising their discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence.
The factors to be considered include: the interests of justice, including the right of the accused to make a full answer and defence; society's interest in encouraging the reporting of sexual assault offences; whether there is a reasonable prospect that the evidence will assist in arriving at a just determination in the case; the need to remove from the fact-finding process any discriminatory

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
belief on bias; the risk that the evidence may unduly arouse sentiments of prejudice, sympathy or hostility in the jury; the potential prejudice to the complainant's personal dignity and right of privacy; the right of the complainant and every individual to personal security and to the full protection and benefit of the law; and any other factor that the judge considers relevant.
Bill C-49 also includes a clear and enhanced procedure applicable to a determination of admissibility of sexual conduct evidence. Basically a two-stage procedure is proposed. First, an application to adduce evidence of a complainant's sexual activity must be made. Second, if the application is granted a hearing must be held to determine whether the evidence is admissible in accordance with the new test proposed.
The procedure begins with an application in writing setting out detailed particulars of the evidence sought to be introduced and the potential relevance to that evidence. The application must be made to a judge with a copy to the prosecutor and clerk of the court. A seven-day notice period is provided to enable the prosecutor to prepare argument as to whether or not the evidence should be subject to a determination of admissibility. Provision is also made for an abridged notice period where the interests of justice so require.
The application stage is designed to discourage frivolous attempts to introduce evidence of sexual activity. Where the judge is of the opinion that the evidence sought to be introduced is not capable of meeting the test for admissibility, the judge will not hold a hearing to make such a determination. Where an application is granted, the judge will hold a hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence in accordance with the test proposed.
The hearing will take place in the absence of the jury and members of the public. Note that the complainant is not a compellable witness at the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge will determine if the evidence is admissible and will be required to state the reasons for. the determination.
The reasons must be written or recorded and must refer to the factors that have influenced the determination. The reasons must also indicate the manner in which the evidence is expected to be relevant. The judge may determine that only part of the evidence sought to be
adduced meets the test of admissibility and, if so, the reasons would state the part of the evidence to be admitted.
These procedural provisions require judges to proceed through a staged analysis when considering admissibility. More than a brief reference to the test of admissibility is required in the judge's reasons.
The amendments proposed in Bill C-49 also restore provisions which protect the victim from embarrassment and which respect the victim's privacy and dignity. For example, the hearing to determine admissibility shall be held in camera, that is the public and the jury are excluded. The victim shall not be compellable at the hearing, that is the victim cannot be compelled to be a witness at the hearing although the victim may voluntarily take the stand. Evidence taken or information given at the hearing shall not be published in any newspaper or broadcast.
The re-enactment of the non-compellability provisions is essential in order to protect victims and encourage their co-operation in prosecutions. Note that the complainant may give evidence if he or she chooses to do so.
However, the complainant could not be required to testify at the hearing to determine admissibility. Bill C-49 also provides that the determination of admissibility of evidence of a complainant's sexual activity shall be conducted in the absence of the jury and members of the public, i.e., in camera.
The procedural provisions set out a two-step process, an application followed by a hearing. A judge considering an application to introduce evidence of a complainant's sexual activity must do so in the absence of the jury and the public. If the application is granted and a hearing is held to determine the admissibility of such evidence, the hearing must also be held in camera.
The objective of the in camera hearing is to ensure that the jury and the public do not hear evidence of the complainant's sexual activity before a judge has determined whether such evidence is admissible. The exposure of evidence of the complainant's sexual activity which may be misleading and irrelevant would have a highly prejudicial effect on the trial process and would cause unnecessary embarrassment to the complainant.
June 15, 1992

The proposed amendments governing the reception and use of evidence of a sexual assault victim's sexual history reflect the current reality of the 1990s. That is that evidence of the complainant's sexual history is rarely relevant to the issue before the court.
However, where that evidence is relevant, the Criminal Code permits its admission. Bill C-49 amendments reflect the very sensitive balance between the interests of the victims and the rights of the accused persons.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise to participate in this debate at third reading because of the absolute essential nature of having this legislation.
The problem that this legislation is meant to address is essentially a problem of attitudes and it is very, very difficult as everyone in this Chamber knows to legislate with regard to attitudes. Indeed, for many years one of the arguments against legislation of this nature, one of the many arguments against the legislation that this is replacing-in other words, the charter defeated rape shield provisions of the Criminal Code-was that you cannot legislate attitudes. I think all of us who support this bill say that not only can you legislate attitudes, but you must.
There is a very frightening attitude if you will in this country today. It is not held by all fortunately, but unfortunately it is held by enough people. That attitude is that women somehow are less believable, that women are less credible witnesses, that women invite sexual assault, that women are somehow less innocent victims when the crimes of which they are the subject are crimes that have "a sexual nature".
First of all, it is well established in the academic and scholarly literature surrounding these criminal issues that such crimes are not crimes of a sexual nature. That is the first attitude that legislation like this must change. Indeed, crimes of this nature are crimes of power and crimes of violence. Women in our society are by and large powerless. This is why they are so frequently the victims of these cowardly crimes.
When the legislation was first changed some 10 to 12 years ago, one of the things that was changed was the removal of the word "rape" from the Criminal Code. The theory behind that deletion was that the word itself was so pejorative that it set up a victimology, the same
Government Orders
kind of victimology we are trying to delete right now with this legislation. The word rape was so pejorative that people immediately reacted to it by blaming the victim.
It is interesting. We do not deal with it in this legislation nor indeed is it perhaps necessary to deal in this legislation right now with these particular amendments. I hope we will deal with it at some other time.
A lot of feminists and criminologists thought that perhaps we moved too quickly and moved too soon on the removal of that word from the Criminal Code. There is no question the word is blunt, it is direct and you know what it means. We have removed that and replaced it with the words "sexual assault" which somehow contributes to the attitude that these crimes are not as serious as the vast majority sitting in this room know they are.
We are hearing over and over again, as we read in the papers, as we watch television, as we listen to our radios and as we as parliamentarians hear the experiences of our constituents, that there is an upsurge in crimes of violence against women including those crimes of sexual assault. My own fear, and sometimes I almost hesitate to articulate it for fear of articulation making it more true, is that we are suffering through a major backlash that relates to the further emancipation of women in our society today. The fear of women stepping out of the traditional roles of homemaker and mother and into the boardrooms, into the professions and even to a small extent into this Chamber, Madam Speaker, and into your chair, is creating a backlash of fear, anger and yes, even hatred among certain sectors in our society.
Because of this backlash of fear, anger and hatred, crimes of violence against women are on the increase. We certainly know they are on the increase. We are waiting for various people and various organizations such as the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women to give us some answer as to why they are on the increase.
When the old rape shield laws were thrown out by the Supreme Court based on the charter argument, it was absolutely crucial that the government step forward and give us something to replace them with. This legislation may not be perfect. My colleague, the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, brought forward a number of amendments that I certainly supported. By and large,

Government Orders
this legislation deserves to be supported because it is a fairly substantial step in the right direction.
There are two major problems, the first one being the attitudinal problem. The second one is the need to convince women that they can get justice without too much fear in our law courts. Without legislation such as this, it makes it all the harder for those people working in the area against sexual assault to convince women of this.
As every one of us must know, those of us who are lawyers have seen it first hand, others have heard about it, read about it or witnessed it through family and friends, the events surrounding a trial, surrounding charges being laid on matters of sexual assault create a double victimization. Even if all of the victim's rights are protected, her privacy, her right not to have to disclose irrelevant background information, et cetera, even if these rights are respected, the mere fact of pressing the charge means that she has to relive the horror of the sexual assault. That is going to be a difficult endeavour for anyone. How much worse will it be if she does not feel that she is protected against having to be cross-examined on what is ostensibly irrelevant information.
It is crucial that the women of Canada understand exactly what this legislation will do. We know the statistics but they bear repeating. In 1990, 27,000 sexual assaults were reported to the police-27,000, Madam Speaker, and we know that over 60 per cent of sexual assaults are not reported. So when you see those figures, you see just how widespread a problem it is and how many people are affected.
This year it is estimated that one in four Canadian women will experience sexual assault, yet fewer than one in 10 will report it. Unless we make it known to Canadian women and back it up with legislation that they need not fear a double assault, an emotional assault in the law courts, then we will not see an improvement in these statistics.
The other thing that Bill C-49 will do is make all Canadians aware of sexual assault law. There is no question that in this area women practise denial, as do men. "It cannot happen to me" or "It cannot happen to my sister, my wife, my daughter. It can't, it can't, it
can't". It can, Madam Speaker, we all know it can, and we know sadly that the streets are not safe for Canadian women. We know that. We know that Canadian women are not safe in their houses from assault. All of us know the horror of the case involving the 911 line in Calgary, when a woman called while a man was trying to break in through her back door and police protocol was such that they did not respond in time. We all felt the horror to some degree that the woman must have felt when she lived through that experience. Only an awareness of how widespread sexual assault is will lead to the proper protocols and the proper responses.
One of the most important things in Bill C-49 with regard to an attitude change is the message that no means no. Interestingly enough, this is the message that has received the most intense response.
If this subject were not so serious and so crucial to the well-being of not just Canadian women but Canadian society in general, I could almost say that I am faintly amused by the response. I have had men of my acquaintance say to me things-I mean, seriously, one man said to me: "Well, it's sure not going to make courtship much fun". My response was: "Gee, dates with you must have been really terrific".
I do not know what people who are afraid of the no means no statement in the law are really afraid of. The amendment brought forward by the government and supported by our side of the House that you remove all reasonable means to establish consent to reasonable means, is indeed a reasonable amendment. But I am not sure what the difficulty is in the minds of those people who still think that this is going to create a terrible tyranny on men in their social endeavours in this country.
It is true that a great deal of what passes between men and women in these relationships is tacit. But what women are saying is that too much has been taken for granted and taken tacitly for granted. When we have had in this country a woman who was deaf and mute, who kicked and screamed and fought back, and a judge still said that she had not been able to establish her lack of consent, I think that the women of this country have a right to stand up and say: "We want it explicit that no means no".

When we have had a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia call a three year old girl sexually aggressive-it is so difficult to encompass the thought it is almost hard to say the words-then women in this country, and men too, have a right to see a law that says no means no.
When we have had a judge in the Northwest Territories say that: "It does not matter as much if you assault native women because they are either drunk or asleep", then the time is long overdue for a law in this country that says no means no.
The time has come for all Canadians to understand that there is a responsibility in social relationships. Women are not playing games when they say no. Women are in the vast majority of cases not walking around on the earth to torment and bedevil men, although with the greatest of respect sometimes that might not be such a bad idea. Women have a right to say what they want and what they do not want, and if they happen to say it in a bar room or in a bedroom or on a beach, or in a public street, the location does not matter, the circumstances do not matter. What matters is that no means no.
Again and again we have heard from various groups that this is going to be impossible to establish. That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.
I said to a rather well-known lawyer in this country who made that statement at committee: "Which word did you not understand?" I think that phrase is something all of us should carry forward in arguing in support of the no means no section of this bill.
For too long the tacit belief that women when they say no mean yes has been accepted and has been laughed about and joked about. For too long there has been some sort of general belief among a certain segment of the male population and I want to make perfectly clear to all of my esteemed colleagues that I do not put all of them in that category. I put some of them in there but not all of them.
The response is such that women have a right to be taken seriously and what this law finally does is take the reactions and the responses of women seriously. It may be more difficult. It may make social interaction more complicated and complex, although I cannot imagine how that could possibly be the case, it is so complicated and complex right now.
Government Orders
Unquestionably it is what we must have. Unquestionably it is what we must put in the Criminal Code for the protection of women in this country.
It is a sign to the judges, to the police officers, to lawyers and to society in general that sexual assault is not a joke and it will not be tolerated. It is something we need to say to judges when we stand here in this Chamber and know that 40 per cent of Canadian judges have yet to avail themselves of the gender sensitivity training courses.
I have already listed in my remarks this afternoon the most outstanding shall we say, of horrifying comments by judges in the area of sexual assault. I know of another judge in this country who hears the majority of sexual assault cases in his particular jurisdiction and on the rare occasions when he convicts will give intermittent sentences or very light sentences, sentences that show he just does not take these offences seriously.
We have to make a change. This legislation is a step in making that change. While the government still refuses to institute mandatory training for federally appointed judges, then all the more reason to support legislation of this nature. We must have something that the women of this country can depend upon to protect them in the rising epidemic of sexual assault, and the rising epidemic of violence against women.
This is not an anti-men amendment. This is not going to change the actions of the vast majority of good, decent men who live their lives understanding that women have a perfect right to make their intentions known.
It is going to make a difference to that subspecies of humanity that does not seem to believe that women have a right to make a choice. When we lost the old amendments to the code after the Seaboyer and Gayme decision, it was absolutely crucial that the government step in with new amendments. Bill C-49 fulfils, to the best of its ability in this particular circumstance, the steps which must be taken for the proper admission of evidence.
I want to say a few words about the preamble to the bill. The preamble makes special mention of the prevalence of the crime against women and children. We know that this is absolutely so. We also support the naming of doubly disadvantaged groups: visible minorities; sex-trade workers; disabled persons; lesbians and those whose immigration status is questionable. Unfortunately the government did not accept that.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
We are also aware that the preamble to the bill does not really have much of an influence on courts per se so we had wanted both of these changes to be moved to the body of the bill to give it more weight in a court of law.
The last time that we brought forward sexual assault amendments to the code we lost them after a number of years under the charter in the Supreme Court of Canada. There is no doubt in my mind, nor do I think there is doubt in anyone else's mind, that these amendments will also be the subject of a charter challenge.
We support this bill and we hope it will survive the charter challenge. If it does not then we will have to go back to the drawing board once again because this issue is perhaps the most crucial issue that women have to fight under the Criminal Code of Canada.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from the committee and the Minister of Justice in this debate today on the third reading of Bill C-49.
First I want to say that I was pleased to be a member of the legislative committee. The committee worked very well and co-operatively in hearing the witnesses and extracting from them substantive arguments and some technical amendments. We put them forward and the committee process was one of consensus and co-operation. I am pleased that it was so. I am also pleased that we were able to agree on the amendments and bring them forward.
I am very proud to be part of a government that has made security of women in our society a priority. Our government recognizes that security of the person and the ability to live without fear are essential to women's achievement of equality. We have taken action to ensure that these fundamental rights for women are protected in Canada.
Bill C-49 is evidence of our government's and society's efforts to ensure the security of women who are victims of sexual assault.
Last August the Supreme Court of Canada struck down section 276 of the Criminal Code in the Seaboyer decision which governed the reception of evidence of a victim's sexual history during the course of a sexual assault trial. The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 276 overshot or overstepped the mark in protecting complainants. That decision evoked expressions of concern from many women and women's groups. If assailants could use the provisions of the charter of rights to strike down protections such as the rape shield provision, it would seem that the justice system was offering greater protection to the assailant than to the victim.
The government moved quickly to respond to these concerns. It was a narrow decision by the Supreme Court, but the perception was that women did not have very much protection and, in some cases, they did not. Therefore, we had to move very quickly.
The Minister of Justice undertook an immediate consultative process with women's groups, the bar, provincial and territorial governments and other legal experts to canvass as many views as possible on the direction that the new law should take.
I would emphasize that it was the consensus, and I would say society's consensus, that the new law had to take into account today's reality of violence against women. The Minister of Justice agreed.
Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sexual assault, received first reading in the House of Commons on December 12, 1991. It is of landmark value in protecting the rights of women victims of sexual assault.
The bill provides for strict guidelines in determining the admissibility of past sexual history as evidence and outlines clearly the procedure which must be followed in admitting such evidence. According to the bill's provisions, evidence of the victim's sexual activity would not be admissible unless that evidence was specific, was relevant to the issue to be proved, and its probative value
June 15, 1992

was not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.
The bill also legally defines for the first time the concept of consent, a definition of consent to sexual activity, that is clear and unambiguous. Under the present law, a man accused of sexual assault can be acquitted if he can persuade a judge that he honestly believed the woman consented.
Under the legislation proposed by Bill C-49, the test of consent would be whether the woman's behaviour was sufficient to convince an objective third party that the woman had agreed to the man's sexual advances. Bill C-49 clearly states that submission does not signal consent nor does silence and that is very important. Under this bill, no clearly means no. This means a great deal to the women of Canada.
Also, for the first time in the history of Canadian common law, or one of the few times, the bill has a preamble. This was the subject of much discussion and debate.
When I found out that I would be sitting on the committee, I sent letters to constituents who had expressed an interest in issues affecting women. I sent them copies of the bill and some of the information about the bill and I asked them for their advice.
One woman, a professor at the University of Alberta, Professor Susan Jackel, wrote me a four-page letter in response. She is a professor of history and Canadian studies and also has offered advice to the government on constitutional matters. She is not a lawyer. I want to quote what she had to say on the preamble. I believe this to be very important.
I cannot tell you how important it is to the women of Canada to see their own experience and understanding reflected in the wording of a law, not only in its technical sections, but in the general statement at the beginning about the values of Canadian society. To read that "the Parliament of Canada is gravely concerned about the incidence of sexual violence and abuse in Canadian society"; that Parliament is likewise cognizant of "how sexual assault and, more particularly, the fear of sexual assault affect the lives of the people of Canada"; and that "the Parliament of Canada wishes to encourage the reporting of incidents of sexual violence or abuse," in the interests of justice for all Canadians, is indeed a milestone.
She goes on to say:
Much of my recent research on the history of women as citizens of Canada, and as activists in the reform of law, has uncovered a long, rather regrettable story of many intelligent women's sense of alienation from the laws that govern them. Women have seen the
Government Orders
law as an oppressive, or at best insensitive, instrument when it comes to the daily reality of their lives.
This departure from the practice of common law, to put a preamble to a bill, is welcomed by women in society for these very reasons. It provides guidance to the courts. It interprets the daily lives and fears and the reality of violence against women for those who read the law. I believe that is very important.
The amendments of Bill C-49 are of crucial importance in protecting the rights of women who have been victims of sexual assault. These women should not have to be revictimized in the course of bringing the accused to justice. Bill C-49 sends a clear message that our society will not tolerate sexual assault or any other form of violence against women.
Once again, I want to quote from Professor Jackel's letter. It was four pages long and she puts it in much better words than I can. It is important to read what she has to say about sexual assault and put it on the record. She states:
The fact of sexual assault is part of that oppression for a minority of women; the fear of such assault-and it is present in the vast majority of women, in many circumstances-is one of the major impediments to free, trusting relationships between men and women.
She goes on to say:
As a professor and student advisor, I am especially aware of the limitations that women place upon themselves in pursuing their studies, out of justified caution about being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Women students make academic decisions-not to take an evening course, not to study in the library in the evenings, not to take a course that might end in their being labelled "feminist"- because of fear. Combating that fear, through the law and the administration of justice, is thus not only a security-of-the-person issue, but it is also an equality issue, as defined in sections 15 and 28 of the Charter.
She says further:
Women who cannot take equal advantage of education and training opportunities out of fear are at a disadvantage relative to men. The law should act positively to ameliorate this disadvantage, without removing the safeguards that are needed for an over-all balanced approach to justice.
That is what this law does. It helps remove the fear women have about the law itself and about how they will be treated before the courts and within the judicial system. I believe that is important.
I want to thank Professor Jackel for her advice to me which I was able to bring forward to the committee.
The Prime Minister has said that one Canadian woman suffering violence at home or elsewhere is one too many. Therefore our government has made a priority in putting an end to violence against women.

Government Orders
Our government's goal is zero tolerance. Our commitment to that goal is evident in the federal family violence initiative announced in February 1991. It is providing $136 million over four years for programs in the area of health and social services, criminal justice, community action, housing and support services for aboriginal communities.
Women's security is a key focus of the family violence initiative. As children, as seniors and at all ages in between, women are the most frequent victims of family violence. Through the family violence initiative our government has pledged to work closely with its partners in society to eliminate family violence through activities such as the promotion of community-based projects, the creation of new emergency shelters for women and support for training for police and the judiciary in understanding the depth and breadth of family violence.
I would also note that an estimated one-quarter of the federal government's Canada Assistance Plan contributions to the provinces and territories is used to provide support to victims of family violence.
I would also like to point to our government's establishment last August of the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women. This is the first comprehensive national examination of violence against women that has ever been undertaken in this country and indeed, the first of its kind in the world.
Co-chaired by Pat Freeman Marshall of Tbronto and Marthe Asselin Vaillancourt of Jonquiere, Quebec, the panel's members are representative of Canada's best knowledge, experience, sensitivity and leadership on this issue.
The panel has been mandated to examine the issue of violence against women through an interactive, responsive and grassroots dialogue. It has embarked upon an intensive schedule of consultations in large and small communities across Canada in an effort to reach all possible participants including victims of violence, frontline, social service, education and health care workers, and other community members.
The panel began its operations in September and has visited so far more than 130 communities in all of Canada's provinces and territories.
Early next month, the panel will issue an interim report which will provide an overview of its work done so far and what panel members have heard in the course of their public consultations, as well as preliminary proposals for eliminating violence against women. This will set the stage for the second round of the panel's public consultations which will begin again this summer.
We can expect the panel's final report in December. It will include recommendations and a concrete plan of action to help make Canadian society safer and more equitable for women.
In conclusion, our government considers the security of women in society to be of absolute paramount importance. I thank the many members of this House who have made a significant contribution through their support and through their personal efforts to the advancement of women's equality in society.
I want to quote once again from Professor Jackel as she sums up her letter to me providing advice on Bill C-49: "I know that you and your colleagues will listen carefully to all presenters at your committee hearings, but I hope that in the end your decision will be to recommend this bill to Parliament substantially unchanged. I believe it has been drafted with care and deserves to become law".
I believe that also. I call on members of the House to support us in making this bill law.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, in most cases the women of Canada have benefited from the decisions of the Supreme Court. Our justices have, for example, upheld the laws that ban the production and importation of hard-core pornography. Unfortunately, this type of enlightened and progressive vision was abandoned when the high court struck down the provision of the Criminal Code known as rape shield.
The women of Canada were angered by the court's decision because they viewed this action as a direct assault on their security. The decision in effect would allow for continued victimization of women who have been sexually assaulted.
The decision gave defence attorneys the right to raise a woman's past sexual experiences and use them as relevant testimony in determining consent. The lack of a rape shield provision would result in brutal cross-examination of women by defence lawyers who are seeking to
June 15, 1992

discredit a victim's testimony based on negative stereotypes of women.
It is time for the cycle of victimization to end. No in every conceivable circumstance means no. Men must realize that sex is a matter for two mutually consenting adults. The old power games must be put to rest. The antiquated and unrealistic view of sexuality must be shelved. This is not a time for subtlety or for carefully selected words. Far too many children and women have fallen prey to this insidious violence against their bodies and their minds.
This is why I find myself in the unusual or awkward position of having to praise the government for its swift action. I share the Minister of Justice's concern when she says we must protect the rights of rape victims. This is why I am more than happy to support this law.
Bill C-49 is the first piece of legislation in history that is founded both on the experience and expertise of women. This is a bill that recognizes the reality of a rape trial and takes into account the constitutional rights of both the accused and the victim.
The most important element of this bill is that it says a complainant's sexual history is rarely relevant. By admitting such evidence, the court would be seriously compromising the woman's case as to consent.
It completely boggles my mind that because a woman consented to sex the previous week, the last hour, or if she had sex many times with different men, that somehow this previous consent applies to every subsequent sexual advance.
This bill was introduced in December of last year and will hopefully fill the gap left by the Supreme Court Seaboyer and Gayme case.
The preamble of this bill is essential in clearly expressing to the people of Canada this House's collective condemnation of sexual violence, not only against women but against children as well. This law is the first in the Criminal Code to have a preamble that explicitly says a victim's sexual past is rarely relevant.
I find it strange that some segments of society have ridiculed this legislation. I am certain that many members of this House have seen caricatures in the newspa-
Govemment Orders
pers that portray lawyers sitting behind an amorous couple arranging the affidavits, making certain that consent is established.
Consent is the crux of sexual assault trials. If it has been established that consent has been given, the woman's claim of attack is rejected. It is imperative that the law be absolutely clear on this matter, as must the partners involved in the sexual activity.
The bill states that consent is the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question. There is no need for lawyers to be present. All you need are two people who understand each other's needs and open and frank communication.
Refusing to talk about sex can lead to very serious problems. By talking to our partners we establish clear guidelines as to what is acceptable and welcome behaviour and what is, for lack of any other description, a violent attack.
This act invalidates consent obtained under certain circumstances such as agreement through a third party or when a complainant is incapable of consenting to sex by reason of intoxication or any other conditions. This law will invalidate consent when the accused has abused their position of power or authority.
Finally, the law allows women to change their minds and refuse consent at any juncture.
These provisions recognize the reality of sexual assault. They tell us that the government recognizes that far too often women have been forced to engage in sexual activities by their bosses for fear of losing their jobs. They recognize that women and children are often in subordinate positions and are at high risk of being victimized. It also acknowledges and addresses the painful reality that often the perpetrators of sexual assault are friends, relatives, or co-workers of the victims.
Bill C-49 also recognizes that the incapacity to refuse consent by reasons of intoxication is by no means consent. Men can no longer use that defensive, mistaken belief concerning consent. This bill makes people responsible for their actions. Because an individual has had too much to drink and because of this irresponsible behaviour one believes that consent was obtained is hardly a reason to let him off the hook.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders

Bill C-49 will finally give women the tools they need to confront their assailants.
It is reported in 1992 that one woman in four, or 25 per cent of the female population, has been sexually assaulted, but less than one in 10 report it. Since the law seems to have been written for the accused rather than for the victim, only 5 per cent of those accused of sexual assault were convicted.
For too long, our society has accepted violence and assault against women as a man's right and a symbol of his superiority. I am glad that we are daring to abolish that myth today.
Nevertheless, I find it hard to take that in the late 20th century, we must have recourse to the law to ensure women's right to say no. We have a great deal to learn about communication and respect.
This legislation has been eagerly awaited for a long time. I must congratulate the Minister of Justice here for her efficiency. Although I do not always agree with what the government does, I cannot overlook this major step for the greater welfare of women in particular.
It is high time for our society to face the problem of violence. We must stop finding excuses and instead look at reality as it is. The reason this bill is before the House today is that our society is seriously sick and the only way we know to exercise control is through the law.
This is no fairy tale and we all have our work cut out for us to make this society human again.
The preamble of Bill C-49 is a guide so that lawyers and judges understand the importance of discretion regarding the sexual history of the complainant, who is usually a woman. It recognizes the unique character of this kind of offence, as well as its effects on the population. It reminds us how serious this offence is.
Historically, a woman's sexual history and reputation were considered relevant evidence, since it was accepted that loose morals were an indication of her consent.
With Bill C-49, regardless of a person's past, consent still means saying yes and no will always mean refusal of consent. Unfortunately, for far too many men, the law will remain an abstraction. Men must organize so that the problem comes out in the open. Their education
must begin with their peers if we really want to work on stopping this violence. It must start today.
Some steps have been taken and the white ribbon campaign is an example. This must continue. Men of all ages assault women; men of all ages deny it; men of all ages do not want to admit that there is a problem, that they have had a problem. But still, all these men have had at least one woman in their life, their mother.
We are barely beginning to lift the veil on all the violence and assault in the military world. As soon as the veil is lifted, voices are raised to lower the veil again and deny what is going on. This happened just a few months ago. What are we afraid of? Do we always have to go to court to protect those who have been assaulted, always after the damage is done?
Despite what many people think, sexual assault is not only physical assault. The human being as a person is violated. It leaves a deep wound that can never be forgotten, even if it can be survived. It is the violation of someone's body. In too many cases, it is done on a bet or a dare, as an initiation rite or an act of wild misbehaviour. It is using someone else to satisfy a desire, nothing else, like merchandise that is discarded once it is no longer needed. That is what we do when we let ourselves go-

The bill was modified somewhat during the legislative committee process. Aside from a few minor technical changes, there are three major amendments. The preamble to the bill was changed to make special mention of the prevalence of sexual assault against women and children.
We supported this amendment. However, we hoped that it would mention certain doubly disadvantaged groups such as visible minority women, sex-trade workers, disabled persons, lesbians and those whose immigration status is questionable. Unfortunately this was not accepted by the government.
We also requested that the preamble be moved to the main body of the legislation so that the statement it makes would carry more weight in a court of law. Originally the legislation required that the accused take all reasonable steps to ascertain consent. The bill was amended by the government with the support of our party so that it now reads "take reasonable steps to ascertain consent".

Government Orders
It is imperative that the new legislation be able to meet any new charter challenge. We do not want to find ourselves in the same situation as we did after last fall's Supreme Court decision.
The final amendment put forward by the government allows for the publication of a judge's decision when the judge allows evidence of a complainant's prior sexual history to be used in the trial. This decision would allow for such publication on a case by case basis.
I hope this bill will give the women of this country security and confidence in the justice system. I hope it will remove the fear that women could be victimized a second time by a system that is insensitive to the nature of sexual assault.

Bill C-49 is a step in the right direction to start protecting victims of sexual assault. It is a first step, but it is up to all of us to work at rooting out the causes of sexual assault. The economy must pick up so that people work. Above all, men must be educated to respect their partner and look for help when they lose control. Women must be educated to protect themselves and use the few available resources to be able to recover.
Our society is very sick when people are only considered commodities. We must all work to restore every woman's pride in who she is. We must all get involved, if only by realizing that all our sexist behaviour, from the jokes we tell to what we do, makes it harder to leam mutual respect. That is one attitude to correct and the House of Commons is a good place to practise what we preach.
We cannot expect the law to solve all problems. Together we formulate rules for our society and together we must see that they are enforced. We each have a role to play in ensuring that our children enjoy a better quality of life than those who live on the street. Violence and sexual assault must no longer be the lot of women and children, and all of us, you and I, must see to it starting today.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak again on Bill C-49, the new sexual assault law.
I am disappointed that most of the amendments I proposed did not pass. The amendments I put forward were those drafted by a large number of diverse women's organizations. Unfortunately some women's organizations have withdrawn their support of this bill because important amendments were not included.
One of these amendments is the naming of women who are most vulnerable to violence and who have the least access to our justice system. One of the amendments that did pass was the amendment that changed "all reasonable steps" to simply "reasonable steps".
I was alone on the committee in voting against that amendment because I believe that the provision "all reasonable steps" would have passed the charter challenge, as a number of legal experts across the country also believe that it would survive a charter challenge.
The committee which studied the sexual assault bill heard over and over again from prostitutes, disabled women, black women, aboriginal women and immigrant women that some women believe that the justice system does not serve them, that there is no point in reporting assault to the police or going to court because their race, ability and type of employment are held against them.
These women wanted their situation clearly spelled out in the bill to let doubly disadvantaged women know that this law is meant for them also and to let police, lawyers and judges know that their concerns are to be taken seriously.
In addition to being sexually assaulted, many women have further pain and humiliation in store when they try to access our justice system.
Many Canadians, including some members of this House, do not understand the depth of the pain and violation that is involved in sexual assault. They do not understand the effect sexual assault has on women. They think of it as sex that got out of hand rather than an act of violence which often leads women to suicide, to drug and alcohol use, to fear, hatred, disgust, nightmares,

Government Orders
severe eating disorders, debilitating insecurity and selfblame, anxiety attacks and problems in relationships.
One in five rape victims attempts suicide as opposed to one in 50 non-assaulted women. Sixty per cent of female clients receiving treatment for drug and alcohol abuse at a treatment centre were found to be victims of sexual assault.
Those are some of the long-term psychological effects.
Physical effects of sexual assault can include permanent physical disability, unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, including AIDS, broken bones, bruises and death. Our society still expects women to take responsibility for sexual assault. It does not expect the victim of any other crime to take that responsibility. It does not expect people who have been injured by a drunk driver to have worn brighter clothing or driven a brightly coloured car. Everybody knows the responsibility lies with people not to drive drunk.
For the first time, sexual assault laws will be brought into line with the other laws of our nation. It is the responsibility of people not to commit sexual assaults. Some people think that if women did not go out at night that would reduce the risk of sexual assault. What about the hundreds of women who are assaulted on university campuses? This kind of logic says that maybe they should stop going to university.
What about women who are assaulted in their work places? Should they stop going to work? Should we stop walking on our streets? Should we not go to the grocery store, not visit our family and our friends? One woman was sexually assaulted while shovelling her own driveway in winter in broad daylight. Maybe women should stay at home.
However, the majority of sexual assaults occur in a private home. Women are actually safer on the streets than in their homes. So where do we go to be safe? The problem with changing women's behaviour to avoid sexual assault is that no matter what we do, no matter where we are, no matter what we look like, and no matter what we wear we are targets for sexual assaults. Some are targets even more than others because as a result of their race or because they are poor or a
prostitute they are more vulnerable and less likely to be believed.
The problem is not women's behaviour. The problem is the behaviour and attitudes of the men who commit this crime. This should be the focus. We are going to stop sexual assaults by convicting the men who commit them and by changing attitudes so that our society no longer tolerates them.
Most women are sexually assaulted by men they know. Often the men are men they are supposed to trust and have faith in, such as their fathers, teachers, priests, doctors and friends.
A Canadian study of sex offenders reveals that their profile does not deviate from the average male. There is no one out there who has sex offender written on his forehead. The rehabilitation programs for sex offenders in prison are notoriously ineffective.
They concentrate on sex rather than on violence, power and negative attitudes toward women. Rape is a crime of power, a crime of anger and ignorance, not a crime of sex. It does not matter what a woman is wearing or not wearing. Nowhere in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does it state that one's human rights, that one's right to security of the person is suspended because of an item of clothing.
Different cultures and different people within a culture have very different ideas about what constitutes too little clothing. Clothing does not say yes or no, only people can do that.
Sexual assault happens to women of all ages, from three months to well into their nineties. Studies show that women who are disabled are far more likely to be sexually assaulted than other women because they are more vulnerable and often less believed.
The portrayal of women in the media and in pornography reinforces beliefs about women asking for it. Fifty-six per cent of men in a study reported that pornography played a role in their offences. A study of video pornography found that 13 per cent of all the scenes involved sexual violation, including rape, sexual harassment, sado-masochism and sexual mutilation.
A national survey of Canadians' use of pornography showed that young men aged 12 to 17 are the primary consumers of pornography. Thirty-five per cent of these

young men expressed an interest in watching sexually violent scenes, including rape, torture and bondage.
The day our society says that it is not natural for boys to be interested in these things is the day that our society stops feeding our young men material that tells them it is fun to rape women and that women enjoy it. That will be another step forward in ending violence against women.
A number of respected studies have found a link between violent and dehumanizing pornography and the acceptance of rape myths, acceptance of violence against women, decrease in sensitivity to the suffering of rape victims and an increase in male willingness to rape.
I congratulate the Supreme Court of Canada on the Butler decision, in which it said once and for all that the problem of pornography was violence and dehumanization, not explicit sex.
As with sexual assault the issue is not sex but violence and degradation. Police officers, customs officers, lawyers and judges need education to examine these issues so that they will not assume that gay or lesbian erotica is necessarily obscene while the rape and torture of women and children is not.
Rarely do we see the pain of sexual assault reflected. Rarely do we see the real victims. Rarely do we see the racism and hatred that often accompanies sexual assault.
Aboriginal women and women of colour have been victims of racist attacks. There are no available statistics on this type of violence. Just over a year ago a white man was convicted of drugging, raping and videotaping 50 young native women aged 11 to 17. In Vancouver another white man targeted aboriginal women. He sexually assaulted nine women and forced them to continue to drink until they died.
I have often heard, in defence of a sexual assault law without strength or substance, that women lie about sexual assault. In fact, the opposite is true. A Winnipeg study showed that 87 per cent of sexual assault victims did not report the crime to the police. A further 12 per cent told no one at all. The reason is because it is humiliating, costly and emotionally debilitating for women to access the criminal justice system on this issue.
Forty-seven per cent of those who did not report it said they believed that the police would do nothing about it. They believed the police and courts had negative attitudes toward women and victims of sexual assault.
Government Orders
Thirty-five per cent feared another assault by the attacker if they did report it and 64 per cent said that fear and shame kept them from reporting it.
When a woman reports sexual assault her private life is open to scrutiny as if it is anyone else's business, in a manner that no victim of any other crime is put on trial. She does not even get a lawyer to represent her. While the accused can access legal aid, she cannot. She merely has the status of a witness of a crime committed against her own body.
I have been told how police, Crown attorneys and judges can be insensitive to sexual assault victims, taking their cues from pornography, the media and misinformation rather than from compassion and reality.
An aboriginal woman from the Northwest Territories was forcibly taken from her home in Vancouver, handcuffed, confined in a space with a violent man and made to testify. Was she a criminal? No, she was the victim of a sexual assault. The man she was confined with was the man who had beaten and raped her. What other victim of a crime would be treated in this way?
The profound ignorance and insensitivity of too many police officers, lawyers and judges keeps women from reporting crimes and testifying. Many women also fear reprisals on the part of the rapist because there is no protection for them. Sometimes women just want to forget and get on with their lives rather than be tormented by the court process and wait for up to a year for the trial to come to court and be finished with.
It is finally time for that to end. This law is one legislative step. It must be accompanied by mandatory training for judges, lawyers and police officers on issues of violence against women and children, and on women's equality issues.
This law means very little when many women are afraid of the criminal justice process because they fear it will only revictimize them. Just because a woman has had sex with a partner before does not mean she has given her consent for ever and ever. No means no. It means no when the woman is a virgin; it means no when the woman is married; it means no when the woman has had several boyfriends; it means no if the woman is lesbian; it means no when she is disabled; it means no when she is a prostitute; it means no when she is homeless. There is never any excuse for sexually assaulting any woman or any child.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
No means no and that is the end of it. It is clear and it is simple. We must train girls to know what their rights are and boys what their responsibilities are. Everyone- girls and women, boys and men-has the right to say no to sex. It is the responsibility of boys and men to take that no seriously.
There were amendments that I had hoped to see included in this bill, but unfortunately they were not. I still support the bill. It is a small legislative step toward that eventual goal of ending the unequal status of women and children in our society and creating a safe and open society for all of Canada's people.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, I also rise to take part in this debate. I was a member of the legislative committee. I was not a member of any of the previous committees but on the legislative committee I had very mixed feelings toward the bill.
These mixed views that I hold on the bill come from many directions. As a woman I have to say that I understand the reasons for the purpose of this bill. I also have to say that I would have liked to have seen other elements brought into consideration along with this bill. There are other stronger considerations I would have liked to have seen, but I will deal with them later in my speech.
The purpose of this bill is to tell Canadians that Parliament will no longer tolerate violence against women, particularly sexual assault.
As a lawyer I have mixed views because many of the witnesses who appeared before us have said that the bill will be challenged. As a lawyer I have to understand on what basis it will be challenged.
It will probably be challenged on the basis that this bill makes no distinction between an intentional rape or sexual assault and an unintentional rape or sexual assault. I say rape and sexual assault because rape is no longer in the Criminal Code. It is incorporated under the terms of sexual assault. I will also deal with that if I have the opportunity later. I really think that rape should be a specific section within the Criminal Code. When we can prove rape we should be proving the most offensive
violence against women. As a lawyer I find it very wrong that it is not specifically there in the code.
I would like to discuss something that Professor Stuart of Queen's University said to the committee, specifically as it relates to the particular area of concern that I have about the bill being challenged under section 7. This is in reference to something said by Chief Justice Lamer.
In one of his cases he stated that there must be a difference between an intentional and an unintentional crime. As a legislator it pains me to think that we could not have come up with a better bill that would not be challenged as soon as it became law.
In the preamble the reasons for the bill are set out. It is very good to set out a preamble, but if we are using a bill to tell Canadians and educate society that this bill means serious business it seems to me that a preamble will get lost in those many statutes passed here in Parliament and across Canada.
It should have been incorporated somewhere in the Criminal Code prior to this as a preamble specifically with a sunset clause to show that after a while we should review it to see if the purpose of the legislation had been followed through or not. Therefore I really do feel, as my colleagues have said, that preamble should have been specific not just in terms of violence against women and children but specifically against doubly disadvantaged women, those groups that came before us to present their case for having a preamble that would represent visible minority women, disabled women, sex trade workers and rape crisis centre clients. They were particularly insistent in naming women who were perceived to be doubly disadvantaged. We could go on to say there are other groups that would be classified as being doubly disadvantaged.
If the minister was using a preamble to educate or to tell the judiciary and the lawyers what was the purpose of the law, then I felt it should have gone further in an attempt to hit specifically and target the doubly disabled groups. It is not doing that. It is saying women and children. Unless the woman who comes in to make a complaint looks like the policeman's wife or daughter, sometimes it is very difficult for him to believe the person is really saying: "I am serious about the charge, about the sexual assault that has just happened".

I do not think it was strong enough, for that reason, in the preamble or in incorporating it somewhere in the Criminal Code in terms of a sunset clause or in terms of a clear direction to the courts and to the enforcement people.
The women and the groups that have worked hard on this matter should be disappointed because they did not obtain a preamble for which they had worked very hard with the minister. Society as a whole knows that violence against women exists. If they are allowing Parliament to pass this legislation, they want it to be the best possible to stop the violence right away.
By the same token, I have said that there were definitely two groups of witnesses. Most of the women's groups supported the bill but wanted to see a stronger preamble. The others, the lawyers and those involved in civil liberties-no one was opposed to the purposes of the bill-felt that it lacked integrity in the sense that it would be challenged.
Probably the most important point about the preamble is the direction it gives. If a preamble gets lost in the shuffle, it has very little effect except to remind people. No judge has to be bound by a preamble whether or not what Parliament hoped to achieve by this bill is actually being followed through.
Another thing I want to say is from a legal point of view. It is difficult to pass a bill when, before it is even passed, different groups say that it will be challenged before. This bill will be challenged. It will be challenged on the mistaken belief section because it limits a defence present in the law for other crimes, shall we say. In the case of murder, if one does not have the specific intent one can be charged with manslaughter because it was a general intent.
When we do away with the mens rea that is so much a part of the Criminal Code in Canada, that specific intent, then it will be challenged.
Professor Stuart, who I thought had a very interesting brief, said there should be something to the effect that we have a negligent sexual assault with a five-year maximum. He said: "Given the above concerns about fairness to the accused"-and I mentioned that earlier-"and possible constitutional problems, it is suggested that section 273.2 be replaced by a provision declaring that where an accused is charged with an offence under section 271, 272 or 273, where the accused
Government Orders
has a belief in consent but did not take reasonable steps to ascertain whether the complainant was consenting, the accused is guilty of an offence punishable on indictment with a penalty of five years imprisonment". This would take into account the person who is intoxicated and who cannot form an intent. Yet he will be found guilty, as Professor Stuart said, of a negligent sexual assault.
We are leaving too much confusion for the courts. I think what will happen is that this will become a very costly bill. Women will find that they will present a case. It will be appealed and it will be thrown out. It will become discouraging.
I realize it is encouraging that it will be made easier for women to take the process into court because of the present law, but I think women will become discouraged very quickly because it is an imperfect law. As a legislator I feel that it should be a perfect bill. If we are going to do a strict liability, that if one is intoxicated is no defence and it is the same liability as someone who took the specific intent to commit a sexual assault on a woman, we are educating Canadians in a very tough way.
I have to admire the present advertising that is being done by the Government of Ontario in terms of telling the people of Ontario that when out on a date they could be committing a sexual assault unless there is consent. It follows through from that.
By the same token, there is no education. The minister has said that there is a panel to review violence against women. Yet in the news this weekend or this past week we heard that the people on the panel were upset. The National Action Committee has said that the panel is not representing the purposes for which it was set up and has questions on that.
There is no more Court Challenges Program. Women cannot challenge decisions or find money to challenge decisions. I see a bill that should have been better perfected to enable a clear direction. Maybe there should be a panel that reviews a judge's decision that has been so clearly offensive to society in terms of a judge, as he reviews a woman before his court, saying there was no crime.
I just feel that we are passing a bill for which the purpose is very relevant, very much a part of our society, and very much a part that is not only distasteful but hateful and against women. Yet we are not talking about education in the schools, education in the universities, or education of the general population, those in law enforcement or our judicial process.

Government Orders
We are passing something that again leaves women exposed. We did not even put in a preamble as groups of women that came before our committee wanted. We made a few changes, mostly as a result of the Canadian Bar Association. They will perhaps improve the bill but they will not stop the challenges.
I have said already in the House tonight that I think a bill people say will be challenged before is perhaps, as some women say, better than no bill, but I find it a bit of a disservice. I find it will allow lawyers to take more challenges to court in an already heavily overworked court system in terms of the charter.
If we wanted better justice in this bill, we would have clearly stated that it was a liability, that if one was drunk one was liable on a sexual assault. We should have noted the difference, that if one is drunk and has a specific intent to go out and rape a person or sexually assault a person tonight then there is a difference. That should be noted. The crime is the crime but for the person who is intoxicated, if found guilty of the assault, the punishment is the same.
Another area I found wanting is when it comes down to the determination of allowing the voir dire, under what grounds we will allow the admissibility of past sexual history. Again I think it will be challenged unfortunately because it could go to the very basis of the truth of the matter, the full answer, and the defence.
I just think we could have passed a better bill, a stronger bill with a preamble. We could have passed a bill that would have precluded any arguments on the defence, but we would have excluded the consent based on the argument that there is no defence based on belief of consent or doing away with somebody's basic right of mistaken belief.
We could have said it clearer in this bill and we would have been telling Canadians that no means no, that there is a no means no law. At the same time we would have been telling the courts, the legal system, that there are no loopholes and that it will not be challenged the day after or the first time a charge is laid in court by a complainant. There will be a negative to what should be a good bill. This has been my concern from the beginning about this bill both as a woman who knows what is happening out there and as a lawyer who has heard in committee that it will be challenged and knows full well why it will be challenged. As a legislators I think we could have done better on a bill we all agree on so that it would not be challenged the day after it is passed.


Mr. Kilgour:: Madam Speaker, it is about two or three minutes to six o'clock. Might we call it she o'clock so the bells might begin?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for me to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m., pursuant to the Standing Order 45(6) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact a Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act.


PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 12, consideration of Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first vote is on Motion No. 2, standing in the name of Mr. Robinson.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker I declare Motion No. 2 lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 17, 36 and 72 lost.
Mr. Gagliano:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I think that you will find unanimous consent to apply the result of the previous vote to Motions Nos. 5, 6, 6B, 9, 9A, 10,11,16, 21,25, 26, 27, 28, 51, 52, 53, 55,73, 76A 80, 83 and 84A.
On the motion for concurrence at report stage, we could apply the vote in reverse.


Miss Grey:: Madam Speaker, I would like to have my vote recorded in reverse. I would like to vote yea on all the remaining motions and then reversed again, nay, at concurrence stage.


Mr. Boudria:: Madam Speaker, I would like to vote with my colleagues in the Liberal caucus on all remaining clauses and of course on the motion for concurrence at the end. Unfortunately, I was not here for the first vote.


Mr. Nystrom:: Madam Speaker, I was not able to be here for the first vote but I would like to have my name recorded as voting with my party for the remaining motions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, with respect, I think it might help if we had one more vote. I am in the same position as my colleagues. I voted one way on this motion and I intend to vote for the rest of the amendments.
After all the other members stand up and speak one more vote would take care of it. But anyway-

Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am quite prepared either way or to take some votes all over again. I think it would be wise to listen to those who want to change some votes. It might be possible, with the co-operation of our clerks, to save a lot of time.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I missed the first vote. I would just like my vote to be recorded with the government for the subsequent votes.


Mr. Lapierre:: Madam Speaker, I was delayed for a few minutes and it kept me from voting for the first series of amendments. I was in favour of the first motion and I agree with the proposal made by the Official Opposition Whip.


Mr. Kindy:: Madam Speaker, I would like to vote with the Official Opposition.


Mr. Belair:: Madam Speaker, I too was away for the first vote, unfortunately. I would like to follow my party, as recommended by the Whip.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I wish my vote on Motion No. 5 to be recorded as a yes vote. On all of the other motions I wish to have my vote recorded with my party.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would like to point out to the House that the results of the previous vote will also apply to Motions Nos. 29, 54 and 56.
The next question is on Motion No. 5, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 5 lost. I declare Motions Nos. 20 and 39 lost as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 6, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 6 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 6B, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion 6B lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 9, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 9 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 9A, standing in the name of Mr. Gauthier.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 9A lost. This means Motion No. 58B is lost as well.
The next question is on Motion, No. 10, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 10 lost. This means Motions Nos. 32 and 59 are lost as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 11, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 11 lost. This means Motions Nos. 13,14,15,33,34,60,62,64 and 65 are lost as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 16, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/au cun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 16 lost. This means Motions Nos. 35 and 66 are lost as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 21, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/au cun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 21 lost. This means that Motions Nos. 22, 23, 24, 40, 41, 43, 44 and 45 are lost as well.
The next question is on Motion, No. 25 standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 25 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 26, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 26 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 27, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 27 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 28, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/au cun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 28 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 29, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 29 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 51, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 51 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 52, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 52 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 53, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/au cun
Madam Deputy Speaker. I declare Motion No. 53 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 54, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 54 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 55, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 55 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 56, standing in the name of Mr. Arseneault.



[Stage Direction]
nil/au cun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 56 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 73, standing in the name of Mr. Parker.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 73 lost. This means that Motion No. 75 is lost as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 76A, standing in the name of Mr. Brewin.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 76A lost. This means Motion No. 82A is lost as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 80, standing in the name of Mr. Parker.



[Stage Direction]
nil/au cun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 80 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 83, standing in the name of Mr. Parker.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 83 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 84A, standing in the name of Mr. Brewin.



[Stage Direction]
Shields
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbinifcre)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Winegard-109
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Thrner (Halton-Peel)
Van De Walle
Vien
Wilbee
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 84A lost.


Hon. Marcel Masse (for the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that the bill be concurred in at the report stage.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual assault), be read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
June 15, 1992
Government Orders
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, as a former Crown attorney who has prosecuted a number of rape cases before both judges and juries, I would like to speak in favour of Bill C-49.
In doing so, I would like to pay tribute to speakers on all sides of the House, many of whom spoke this afternoon. It seems to me that it was the House at its best. Members were speaking from both their heads and their hearts. Members on all sides of the House were doing that and I would like to pay tribute to what many of them said this afternoon.
I have a couple of comments by way of introduction of the probably thousands of cases that I have taken part in either as a Crown or defence lawyer, including a number of murder cases.
The one that troubled me the most was a rape case. Found by a passing motorist, the victim was running partly naked down a gravel road, I believe it was in November, in a snowstorm. The two accused, however, were acquitted by a jury. I do not blame either the jury or the judge but rather the tactics of the defence counsel in that particular case.
A second case involved a former constituent whose apartment was broken into by a total stranger. Afterward she worried greatly, and understandably, that she might contract AIDS. She was told when she asked if her attacker might be given a blood examination that it would constitute assault and could not be done. She worried for weeks, or possibly months, and finally the assailant, to his credit, did allow a blood test for HIV.
Third, I think of the serial rapist in Edmonton who attacked 138 women. He eventually pleaded guilty to most of those charges and was sentenced to a period of time in the penitentiary.
Recently I happened to be at a social event and I met, if you can imagine the coincidence, two of his former victims. One of them is still taking physiotherapy. The assault took place in the seventies, I believe. The other has been severely traumatized by this rape.
In that context I would like to say a few things about the subject generally. Many other speakers have spoken about the particulars of the matter and I do not think I need to go into those details.
Violence against women takes place in our homes, in our work places, in our streets. Increasingly it affects women of all ages, races, cultures and economic status. It takes many forms, from the physical such as rape, battering and dating violence, to the ideological such as misogyny and pornography, to the institutional such as wage gaps and equal career opportunities.
Family violence and violence against women in society, although occurring throughout history, have become social issues unfortunately only in recent years. The current statistics, as we have heard this afternoon, underline the scourge of violence against women across Canada.
Three women are killed every week by an intimate male partner. In the last decade half of the 2,517 women murdered were killed by men with whom they were intimate. A sexual assault is evidently now committed every 17 minutes and 90 per cent of the victims are women. One in four women will be sexually assaulted at home some time during their lives, half before the age of 17. About 56 per cent of women who live in Canadian cities fear for their safety at night.
A Decima research poll found in 1986 that one in five men admitted to having been physically violent to their wives or partners. Four years later in 1990 Decima asked women across the country what they were most afraid of. The responses, in order, were violence inside the home, poverty and violence outside the home.
Last year brought increased awareness of the continuing violence against women and more media focused, thank goodness, on the issue.
T\vo years after the Montreal massacre of 14 women by Marc Lepine, December 6 was designated by federal legislation as National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.
Finally, not so long ago the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held that pornography is not victimless. New legislation replacing the so-called rape shield law, the bill we are discussing today, was introduced to protect the rights of women in sexual assault cases. The panel on violence against women has been established to travel across the country and seek consensus on action to end violence against women wherever it takes place.
June 15, 1992

Gun control legislation has now been passed, making it marginally more difficult to obtain weapons. Police and social services are trying harder to co-ordinate their work to assist victims of violence.
All this effort, although important and long overdue, does not address the root of the problem, for it deals only with symptoms. Effective prevention is needed to change the prevailing attitudes and stereotypes in society that lead to such widespread abuse.
More vigorous and smarter education aimed at 15 to 25-year old minds would help in reducing violence against women and eliminating sexism and socially imposed gender limitations from class-room practices and curriculum material. Family violence should also be part of family life classes during which techniques of peaceful conflict resolution could be taught.
In the spring of 1990, the Canadian Teachers' Federation sponsored a project entitled "Young and Female: The Realities, Concerns, Expectations and Barriers Experienced by Adolescent Women in Canada".
Approximately 1,000 adolescent girls, aged 11 to 19, and their teachers were invited to talk about the experience of being young and female in the 1990s, a period of gender role upheaval. The results reported reflect concerns, opinions and the fear of respondents and provide a startling picture of what it is like to be a teen-age girl in Canada today.
More than half of the participants expressed concerns about issues relating to violence, including child abuse, 68 per cent, and sexual abuse, 65 per cent. Dating violence and wife battering were among the top 20 issues mentioned.
I would like to say a few words about television violence because I am one of those who believe that there is a definite link, perhaps not provable at the moment, between violence on television and violence against women.
A report published in February this year by the American Psychological Association says that the average child in the United States has seen 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television by the time they leave elementary school. The programs were found to devalue and stereotype social groups, including
Government Orders
Afro-Americans and women, by either excluding them from shows or giving them negative roles.
The report, based on a five-year study of nine psychologists, showed that the violence on television influences viewers, particularly children and teenagers, to use violence to resolve conflicts and makes sexual violence and rape more acceptable. Canadian statistics, though not readily available, would probably mirror such findings.
Consolidated efforts by parents, educators and policy makers should aim at stemming the avalanche of violent images broadcast into our homes as well as limiting the time young people watch TV through alternative, more active entertainment.
The extent of dating violence is difficult to estimate because it is rarely reported to police. Date rape has the lowest report rate of all forms of rape. It is estimated that only 1 per cent of such crimes are reported.
The Ms. campus project on sexual assault, an extensive study on patterns of sexual aggression on college campuses, revealed that one quarter of women in American colleges today have been victims of rape or attempted rape.
Almost 90 per cent of them knew the assailant. A study on dating violence conducted by the Richmond Women's Resource Centre Association last year revealed the extent of the problem in B.C.'s lower mainland, which only recently became more known to the general public.
The authors, while outlining preventative measures, stressed that social services simply lack the resources to deal effectively with violence against women or date rape. Existing prevention and educational programs were found to be inadequate. In short, there simply still is not enough awareness and sensitivity to the issue of date rape to result in a closely co-ordinated and effective response to the victims and those perpetuating such violence. All of us must do our best personally to change the status quo here with all deliberate speed.
Many universities have attempted to face the issue of violence against their female students. Sexual harassment policies are being redrafted, workshops on gender issues, date rape, sexism and racism are held, and codes of discipline for social behaviour are being considered.

Government Orders
The most important change which would have the greatest impact on eradicating violent attitudes toward women has to come from within. As I speak, I refer to men in this House and elsewhere who have not yet fully accepted women as equal partners in all walks of life. They must critically examine their own latent prejudices, sexism and outdated attitudes.
The problem of violence is not a women's issue; it is a societal issue in general and a men's issue in particular. We cannot legislate attitudes but we can work together to get them changed. It would be in the best interests of all Canadians.
Canadians finally appear to have become convinced that pornography is simply hate literature against women, children and the family. The perennial question our legislatures ignore, however, is: Does pornography defined as the visual representation of sexual behaviour that includes a degrading portrayal of a human being result in increased violence to women and children?
One recent book by two Canadian authors, W. J. Marshall and Sylvia Barret, Criminal Neglect, presents a disturbing account of how our criminal justice system ignores the devastating effects of sexual assault and outlines how most offenders go free.
The authors, among other equally disturbing evidence, cite the case of Ted Bundy, perhaps one of the most notorious serial killers. He admitted that his repeated exposure to violence, particularly sexual violence in various media, triggered his sexual fantasies and dreams and eroded his inhibitions from acting them out. By his own admission, Bundy's taste for violent and graphic pornography started at the age of 12 when he first discovered the type of soft pornography commonly sold in comer grocery stores.
It is also known that our own country's worst serial killer, Clifford Olson, carried a brief-case full of pornography on his trips around British Columbia during which he murdered 11 children over a period of nine months.
Pornography is now estimated as a $10 billion a year industry on this continent and is one graphic expression of anti-women, anti-child sentiments rampant in our society. Advertising is as guilty of conveying this message of pornography by using sexually explicit images of
half-naked women selling particular types of cars, brands of beer or after-shave. Movies and songs often portray men in positions of power and authority and women in submissive, often negative stereotype roles.
Personally, I do not believe the increasing availability of hard-core pornography reflects contemporary values or attitudes in our country. Au contraire, there has been a strong public demand for the elimination of violent and kiddy pom from our society. People who purvey this type of smut cannot expect to find protection under the charter of rights as we found recently from the Supreme Court of Canada.
I believe that legislation prohibiting or restricting pornography would fall squarely within the provisions of article 1 of the charter, "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".
There is no doubt that the ultimate effect of revised legislation on pornography would be more controls on material that is widely available in Canada today. The point must be made that most pornography is dehumanizing and serves to perpetuate unacceptable myths about women in our society. It is simply hate literature against both sexes. These stereotypes are also consistent with the attainment of full equality for Canadian women which is required by both common sense and section 15 of the charter of rights.
This fact, combined with strong indications that women and children are the victims of pornography, make smut something to be restricted in any civilized society. This is an area where we, of course, need as much consensus as possible.
By way of conclusion, I wish to make a few specific comments on Bill C-49. There are certainly things about the bill which are less than perfect. As my colleague the member for Cape Breton mentioned, there are certainly things we could have done better in the bill.
In fairness, it does provide for strict guidelines in determining the admissibility of past sexual history as evidence. It does outline clearly the procedure that must be followed in admitting such evidence and it does define the notion of consent to sexual activity.
June 15, 1992

The Minister of Justice intends that the preamble to the bill will be used for guidance by trial judges and lawyers alike. I would point out, however, that to my knowledge the preamble to a bill is not a direction that courts can or should follow. My understanding of preambles to bills is that they are simply so many words put together which any court or any judge across the land essentially would ignore. The minister may be overly sanguine in thinking it is going to act as a guide to judges and lawyers alike.
All members in this House hope the fact that an accused has to make a written application to the court for a hearing to determine the admissibility of sexual conduct evidence will help. The prosecutor and the court clerk would then 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 probative value not "substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice against the complainant". There would, of course, be a publication ban on all evidence obtained in such a submission.
There are matters that the court should consider in determining whether to admit such evidence. The Supreme Court of Canada will presumably have to decide whether this is valid under the charter of rights.
The boldest feature of the bill is its attempt to define consent. It defines it in the bill as "the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in sexual activity but also removes or limits the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent". It also, thank goodness, invalidates consent obtained in a number of circumstances which I will not go into. It removes the defence of mistaken belief in consent where the belief was based on the accused's self-induced intoxication or recklessness or wilful blindness. It also adds "all reasonable steps" must be taken by the accused to ascertain consent. It places an evidentiary burden upon the accused using the defence of mistaken belief and consent.
I think it is clear, it seems to be clear, to everybody in the House that we do need a new law against sexual assault which will deal with the reality of the crime, in some cases lifelong devastation on victims who find themselves victims of this type of horrific crime. I think that it will be no surprise to other members-and my time is up too, or virtually up-that we will be voting for
Government Orders
this bill and hoping that the courts, defence counsel and Crown counsel across the country and above all the victims of these crimes will be significantly better off with its passage.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this particular bill as I did during second reading and to reiterate what has been said by other of my colleagues that we on this side are supportive of the bill, supportive of its direction and will support the bill when it is voted upon. That is not to say that there are not some concerns, some worries, but as to the general direction and what was trying to be accomplished with the legislative process, we are supportive. Everyone knows that the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the law and there is some question mark as to whether this bill will follow the same fate. It is possible that this legislation is not charter-proof.
When we read the statistics and hear the information as to the number of unreported rapes that occur and the number of rapes that occur and get a sense of the magnitude of the problem, I think we have to go that extra mile to try to come forward with legislation which encourages women to report rapes and encourages the process of reporting and dealing with this particular problem because it is a major problem.
As some have mentioned earlier, I had the privilege of being on the committee that looked at Bill C-36. We met the victims of the Thkahashi rape case and realized that perhaps over 150 women were raped and only six to nine were considered for charges. The lesser number were charged. We heard about the trauma that those women went through. Some came forward and reported the rapes and some could not face that reality. We have to put in place a system which makes women feel comfortable in dealing with that particular problem. We have to come up with the necessary support mechanisms to assist the victims. Some of the information that came forward was really quite horrendous as to victimizing the victims throughout the whole process rather than rendering that kind of assistance.
In my opinion, one of the victimizations would be the introduction on a wholesale basis of a person's previous sexual conduct which, in all candour, has nothing to do with the particular case or 99.44 per cent of the time has nothing to do with the particular case before the bar. Therefore, in that sense, it is incumbent upon us to come forward with some legislation to deal with that.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
When you look at the history of this whole area of the law, it goes back to the concept that a woman's sexual history and reputation were considered relevant in a rape or an indecent assault trial since the lack of chastity of a female complainant was accepted as indicating her propensity both to agree to sexual activity and to lie about the fact afterward. That was the whole idea of introducing all of this evidence on previous conduct. We all know that is not really relevant in today's society, nor is it relevant to deal with the events of whether or not an offence in fact has occurred.
As I indicated earlier, one of the key points is to find the mechanism that will allow women to feel free to report the situation and come forward, and not feel that they are the ones who are going to be charged and on trial during the process. We have to change that system so they do not feel they are the victims and the ones who are on trial.
We are supportive of the legislation, but we have some concerns. I just want to read a few things into the record just to give you an idea. I think the Liberal Party has talked about changes to the preamble and, in particular, the first whereas clause. I will read this clause into the record first and then some of the comments of groups who appeared before the committee and had some comments about it.
I will quote the first clause: "Whereas the Parliament of Canada is gravely concerned about the incidence of sexual violence and abuse in Canadian society and in particular the prevalence of sexual assault against women and children". That is in the preamble and we are supportive of that, but we feel that it should be expanded because there are some specially disadvantaged women and children who require that special notice.
I would like to read from a number of those groups just to give an idea of their thoughts and to have them on record with respect to this legislation. I will deal first with the Disabled Women's Network of Canada which stated: "On the preamble, because women with disabilities belong to every other group and because we are the most vulnerable in each case, it is imperative that we be identified and named in the preamble of Bill C-49. The
naming of women and children with disabilities in the preamble will not only advise any would-be perpetrators that women with disabilities are protected by this law, it will also let women and children with disabilities know that they are protected and that sexual offences against us are punishable. Mentioning women with disabilities in the preamble makes us visible. It makes us know that we are part of this new bill. It also lets police and judges know. They have not always been sensitive to the fact that we are as worthy of that protection as other women".
Another national organization dealing with immigrants and visible minority women in Canada states: "Immigrants, refugees, domestic workers and women of colour experience racism as well as sexism in every aspect of their lives in Canada, and that includes our dealing with the justice system. We must neither assume that there are no differences nor must we stereotype the differences. The point is to recognize and respect the differences. When you talk about people you have to make it so tight for us that we can then fight our own battles. We do not want you to do all our work, but you have to arm us with the tools so we can say to the police that Parliament says we are a vulnerable group".
Look at native women. All you have to do is look at the statistics dealing with native women and you realize the problem that is there and why that perhaps should have been included in the preamble of this bill. I will quote from the Native Women's Association of Canada: "It has been estimated that eight out of 10 aboriginal women will be beaten or sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. While fear of assault may be a real part of the lives of most Canadian women, being assaulted is too often just a daily reality for aboriginal women".
I also have a statement from the National Association of Women and the Law which states: "We note that the bill says there be no publication. We are concerned with that because we believe there is a clear directive that our judicial system must be accountable for the decisions that are made. If there is a publication ban on the reasons in the voir dire, clearly there is no judicial accountability".

Women are playing a very strong role in wanting the system to be accountable to them. Women and children from different groups, the disabled, minority groups and native groups, want to feel they are getting protection from the system. As we go through the process that I have gone through, sitting on a number of committees that deal with justice bills, we are left with the impression that all of the protections for those disadvantaged groups are not available.
Tiiming to the minister's decision to take out "all reasonable steps'' and substituting "to take reasonable steps" in the legislation, we think that it has achieved the desired goal and we hope that the change will help the bill to withstand a charter challenge. We want this legislation to survive. We want it to function and function properly. We are hopeful that this change will achieve that goal.
In essence, we on this side have made our contribution to try to make the law better. The government has not seen the wisdom of some of the amendments that we have brought forward but at the same time that does not stop us from trying to lead this government to the right conclusions and in the right direction, even though it is sometimes stubborn.
This bill will go a long way to help solve the problem. It will not solve the problem of rape. It will not solve the problem of abuse against women and against children. It will take one small step in that particular area. It will take that one step of protecting women so that they do not become victims of the process. We still have to face those other fundamental issues and get to those fundamental root problems, but at least we are remedying part of the problem in the area of process.
We on this side are supportive of Bill C-49 and will be there to vote for it when the time comes. Thank you for the opportunity to address this bill, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

A. Kim Campbell: that Bill C-79, an act to amend the Divorce Act and the Family Order and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present to you today for second reading a bill which contains a series of amendments to the Divorce Act and the Family Order and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. The bill is intended to improve the operation of both those statutes and in some cases avoid serious problems of application.
In the summer of 1991 the Minister of Justice announced a comprehensive review of family law which should, over the next few years, lead to reforms in the crucial areas of child support, spousal support and custody and access. The bill before us today constitutes the first phase.
Phase two of the initiative includes public consultations on child support, spousal support, and custody and access in co-operation with the federal-provincial-territorial family law committee.
I am certain the family law initiative will convey two significant benefits. It will ensure our legislation is up to date and in keeping with the realities of today's families. In addition, the reforms in the areas of family support and federal support enforcement will enable some single parent families to live independent of public assistance, thus making more effective use of public resources.
In June 1986 a substantially revised Divorce Act took effect. Changes in terminology and substance were introduced to almost every section of the former divorce legislation. In addition, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act was passed the same year. This new act enabled the federal government for the first time to assist the provinces in the enforcement of child and spousal support orders.
Part I of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act provides for the release of information to locate persons who defaulted on these orders or missing family members, while Part II regulates the garnishment of various federal moneys such as income tax refunds payable to the support debtor.

Government Orders
The justice department has carefully monitored the implementation of this legislation and consulted with the various groups affected by it.
Through the process of consultations, proposals were developed to address the problems of application with respect to each act. These are the proposals that are now found in BUI C-79.
I wUl first deal with the amendments to the Divorce Act which propose to reform the jurisdictional rules regarding corollary relief proceedings after divorce and interprovincial variation proceedings. This bUl would provide greater flexibUity in choosing the proper jurisdiction.
A second problem of application relates to the provincial order section. A provisional order is the result of a two-step procedure to vary a support order where the parties do not reside in the same province.
Bill C-79 clarifies that the two-step provisional variation proceedings be used where spouses reside in different provinces and the proceedings must proceed in the absence of the applicant or respondent party, as the case may be, if the parties cannot agree on the jurisdiction. This amendment then carries out the intent of the 1986 Divorce Act.
The bUl also introduces a provision which would offer an alternative to provisional variation proceedings. This new section would highlight the use of affidavits, teleconferencing, or other means of telecommunication in variation proceedings where the parties agree and where territorial and provincial court rules allow.
The bill also addresses the problem of application relating to the FamUy Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. This act mandates two services to Canadian citizens. The first is a tracing service designed to access federal data banks to obtain information which wUl help trace individuals in contravention of a custody access or support order agreement. The second service is provided by a unit which garnishes designated federal payments payable to support debtors.
The amendments to the FamUy Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act would facUitate police officers' access to the federal tracing service.
As well, the bUl proposes to make all tracing searches ongoing for a period of one year rather than there being only one search as at the present time. Among the amendments affecting garnishment it is proposed that a garnishee summons bind Her Majesty for five years as opposed to the current one-year binding period. We expect that a five-year summons wUl save both the enforcement service and provincial services time and expense.
Pursuant to section 58 of the act, a fee may be charged for each garnishee summons served. The bUl wUl provide for a regulatory power for collecting the fee so that it may be collected in a manner which is more bearable to the debtor. For example, the fee could be collected in yearly instalments rather than in one lump sum.
Other proposals in the bUl before us include clarification on the operation of the notice of garnishment. A new provision would enable the establishment by way of regulations of federal levels of hold back. A hold back is that portion of a payment not subject to garnishment and is usually applied to the sum needed by a debtor for subsistence.
These levels of hold back would replace the current plethora of provincial hold back levels which have the effect of subjecting recipients of federal funds to different hold back conditions, depending upon their province of residence. The hold backs will simplify administration and ensure a quality of treatment of all creditors and debtors.
It is the government's intention to introduce a hold back level of 50 per cent for the following funds: unemployment insurance payments; Canada Pension Plan payments; federal training allowances and old age security payments.
In conclusion, I believe that Bill C-79 can accomplish the following two objectives in answer to the previously noted problems of application concerning the Divorce
June 15, 1992

Act and Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act.
First, it would make both acts more responsive to the needs of today's divorced and separated families, and second, it would streamline the tracing and garnishment systems to make them more accessible and more efficient.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-79 goes somewhat toward making the situation in this country a little less of a national disgrace.
It is the problem of child support, of spousal support. I do not think it is possible to relate to this House the misery and the deprivation that single parents, divorced women with children, are going through because the system is not working for them. I think we should be going farther than we are going in this bill to address this situation.
As I mentioned, there are some good points in this bill and this does help the process. It is mainly a technical bill, but it does make some improvements. It was written in consultation with the provinces, the territories and the Canadian Bar Association and it is part of phase one of the minister's family law reform initiative.
The other part is a feasibility study for a national family law data base. We have a lot of data on this question already. We have the data that support payments are well below what they should be. A lot of them are not enforced at all, and I will give more information on this later. The system is not working for people in this country. While it is nice to have feasibility studies, the information that we need is already known to the government.
Bill C-79 will amend the Divorce Act and the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. Its goal is to improve the effectiveness of the support payments system. That in itself is very laudatory. It will also improve the tracing and garnishment systems for support payments, as the hon. parliamentary secretary has stated.
The major change to the Divorce Act appears to be a simplification of the law so that it will be easier for former spouses living in different provinces to apply for a custody or a support order. They would no longer have to be heard in the province where the divorce was granted, and only one of the former spouses would have to reside
Government Orders
in the province where the application for the order is made. This will save both time and money and greatly benefit single mothers, most of whom, as I have mentioned, live under the poverty line.
There is also an allowance for the use of teleconferencing of sworn affidavits if the provincial court allows it. This should also free up court time.
Changes to the Family Order and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act will also reduce costs, this time for investigating child abduction. The proposed amendments would remove the requirement that police officers get court authorization to use federal data banks for tracing individuals in cases of spousal child abduction.
Other changes to this act make garnishee summonses valid for five years rather than the present one year, as the parliamentary secretary also stated.
These amendments would also allow the garnishee summons fee to be paid in instalments. This is to avoid financial hardship for former spouses, mostly women in this case, and regulations would allow that part of the garnishee payment held back for subsistence needs to be set at 50 per cent for UI payments, CPP payments, federal training allowance, and for OAS payments. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that also.
These provisions, as far as they go, are important, but so much time has been wasted in getting to the real problems that exist in this country for single parents. Why are we not doing more at this stage? Why are we doing more studying when the need to aid these families is so great?
At the outset I would like to say that the majority of Canadian child support orders are in arrears. That in itself is a disgrace. Most mother-led post-divorce families live in poverty. That is also a disgrace. This would still be the case even if all payments were made because the orders are ridiculously low.
First, most child support orders are in arrears. Second, most mother-led post-divorce families live in poverty. These families would still be living in poverty even if the payments were made because the payments are so low.
This is a tragedy in this day and age. Two-thirds of divorced mother and children households live in poverty, even with the support payments arriving on time. Contrast this with the fact that 16 per cent of ex-husbands are living below the poverty line after making support payments. Without these payments 75 per cent of mother-children households would be living in poverty.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
During the 1980s there was a drive to reform the support system but this has done very little to resolve the problem. The Ontario government has now taken over the collection of support payments, and 75 per cent of those support payments, of those collections, are in arrears.
The larger problem of unrealistically low court order payments remains even if we have a better system of collection.
This is presumably why the minister introduced her child support guidelines research paper. However the research paper, the data base and all of the talking is not going to help these people. These are young families, young children and former spouses, who are in need of some financial assistance and they are not getting it. The system must be speeded up. It must be more resolved to do something to help these families.
The minister outlines in her paper four approaches to estimating the costs of child rearing and includes detailed calculations based on each of them for families of different sizes, children of different ages, and so on. That is very important information. However, if they do not have the money then this is going to be of very little use to them. They need the actual support.
A research paper by Miriam Grassby, published in the May 1991 issue of Reports of Family Law, shows that the average support awarded is considerably less than half of the actual costs of raising children. Even the support payments, when they are obtained, are less than half of what is actually needed to raise those children.
An already impoverished wife ends up paying a disproportionate share of child costs. She is left with no money whatsoever for leisure or savings for even a modest retirement. Any kind of retirement package is out of the question. She also ends up footing the bill for the emotional and recreational needs of her children, needs an absent and considerably wealthier ex-husband could in most cases give and can very easily ignore because of the system.
Ms. Grassby says:
It is easy to deprive children if you appear to be paying a large
amount for child support. It is very difficult to deprive children if
you are living with them.
While the ex-husbands and the fathers maybe living in a different province and feel they are being very generous, in most cases they are not. They are not even beginning to meet the needs of the children they profess to care for and have such concern for.
While mothers are living in abject poverty trying to meet the needs of the children, and in most cases using every cent that comes forward for their children and denying themselves of anything other than the bare necessities, the system continues to roll on with studies and does not make a meaningful contribution or meaningful declaration to end these injustices.
Judges also often seem unaware of the barriers to a woman becoming self-sufficient if she is older, even in her forties. Not only may she be lacking in skills, experience and opportunity, but as the custodial parent she is not free to travel, work long hours, study at night or socialize with colleagues.
We might also bring up the terrible inequities that exist within our tax system. It is a fact that in this country today a man gets to deduct his child support payments directly from the amount of tax he must pay. The mother must pay income tax on what she receives from him as well as on her own earnings. Where is the justification for this?
First, the payments are ridiculously low. They are not receiving anywhere near the support payments they should be getting.
Second, the orders to enforce these payments are in arrears. They are not being served or enforced.
Third, the meagre amount that the single mother, the former wife, receives she must pay income tax on while the husband gets the amount he pays deducted from his tax payable. I do not see how we can continue to drag our feet while this sort of thing goes on in this country.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary and the minister to do more to correct this injustice.
I know that a lot of this is provincial jurisdiction. It will require working with the provinces. The sooner these conferences and meetings start the sooner we will get somewhere in dealing with this problem. We cannot go
June 15, 1992

on just talking about it and saying that because we have made some improvements that we have corrected the system. We have not corrected the system. We are a long way from correcting the system.
We need to get all of the governments involved in this together. There must be a more meaningful determination to correct this situation.
I would once again ask the government to do more to bring a speedy end to this problem. These children are growing up in poverty. They are a concern to their parents and they are a concern to this country because they are not being treated fairly.
We can only surmise what this is contributing to in terms of juvenile delinquency or problems with young offenders. There are no statistics on that nor will we be able to get any. Certainly if they see the injustice that is continuing there will be a bitterness on their part against the system, against the government, and against the way in which they have been treated.
This is really not helping anyone. It may be allowing the ex-husband to have more disposable income for himself. When we consider the real needs more disposable income for him is certainly not at the top of the priority list. Concern and support for these children and former wives is much higher on the priority list, and if it is not it certainly should be.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party on this matter and also to speak on behalf of our justice critic, the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, who is unable to attend this debate this afternoon.
The bill before us is Bill C-79, an act to amend the Divorce Act and the Family Order and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. As the parliamentary secretary stated earlier in his speech, this bill will result in less red tape and simpler procedures for obtaining and updating support orders and better tracing services. The legislation should mean an improvement to the respective acts. We welcome the opportunity to examine the specific changes proposed.
The bill includes amendments to the Divorce Act so that future applications for custody or support will no longer have to be heard in the province in which the divorce was granted and only one of the former spouses
Government Orders
would have to reside in the province in which application for the order is made.
This is a very important section. Anybody who has dealt in the area of family law has often run into problems in which the custody area has to be changed and the applicant is in a different jurisdiction than the respondent. It often causes many difficulties when there simply is not enough money for either one of the parties to change venues or meet the court in the venue in which the application has been commenced. This is a very positive part of the bill that will and should be supported with some changes.
This bill also includes amendments to the Family Order and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act that would remove the requirement that police officers obtain court authorization to use federal data banks for tracing individuals in cases of spousal child abduction. Police officers will no longer be expected to lay a charge before accessing the name and address information that will help them with their investigation. This certainly makes sense to me.
As well, garnishee summonses for the support payments would be valid for five years rather than the present one-year term. This is particularly important as it is often the experience of custodial parents, those women and children who are waiting for support payments, that they must wait many months for tracing services to find the father who has failed to meet his support payment obligation.
For example, presently a wait of six months leaves only six months of garnisheed support payments until the process must be started all over again. There seems to be a loss of time, a loss of effort, and often a loss of money to the spouse who is looking for the support payment. This must be seen to be an improvement, though recent developments at the provincial level give rise to hope that the wage garnishment procedure will become less and less the tool of last resort for women and for the children who have been abandoned by their fathers. Historically, the responsibility for enforcing family orders and agreements has fallen to the provincial governments.
Until the passing of the Family Order and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act in 1986 there was no tracing information service available at the federal level and federal moneys were immune from garnishment.

Government Orders
In fact, most of the data we have available telling us just how many thousands of fathers are skipping out on their obligations to support their children comes to us from provincial levels.
In Ontario alone, for example, over 75 per cent of support payments are in arrears. That is $400 million that mothers and children have done without because fathers do not want to make their payments. I say fathers because evidence shows that over 97 per cent of payers are men.
There is no need to rely upon terms like payer and recipient when we know that we are talking about women and children who are doing without because men do not want to make payments and have skipped out on the responsibility to their children and their former spouses.
In Ontario, the government has responded to this chronic situation with a new family support plan that is a radical and positive departure from the wage garnishment procedure. In order to apply for wage garnishment, women have had to wait until there has been a default or non-payment. Often they end up waiting over a period of months until there is clear evidence of this. They then have to apply for tracing and location services from the appropriate provincial offices which will turn to the federal services if necessary.
In Ontario, wage garnishment lasted six years. So bringing the federal equivalent closer into line by raising it to five years from one year as this bill will do is a welcome change.
The Ontario government has gone one step further. It implemented a support deduction order which will come into effect at the same time a court makes the support order. The program will serve notice to the employer who must begin deducting support payments from the father's net wages. The support deduction order is portable. It will move from employer to employer and the father must inform the program office of a new employer.
But just as important, this support deduction order lasts as long as the support order so it is really a positive step and a bit of a radical step. It is a step that we should be looking at when this bill gets into committee.
But as I have said, this is new in Canada. It may, in fact, make garnishee summonses a thing of the past for many cases in Ontario, as it has in most of the United States. I hope that other provincial governments are watching this development. There may already be others planning such an initiative. We need to take all of the steps we can to improve the enforcement of support orders.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, we welcome the opportunity to examine this proposed legislation in more detail in committee. We do not want to subject this bill to lengthy debate at this stage. I do want to raise one more matter before I conclude.
At the same time as the minister introduced this bill, she also released to this House and to the public a report entitled The Financial Implications of Child Support Guidelines. That report is the second report of the federal-provincial-territory family law committee and is part of the minister's family law reform initiative announced in June 1991.
There can be no question of the need to establish guidelines on child support payments. Support payments established by the courts are often far too low to meet the basic needs of children and vary widely in rulings of an otherwise similar nature. Those of us who have been in court on occasion, in family court, from court to court and from region to region, have seen some of these disparities.
That report may provide some valuable insight into the process of determining those guidelines. It may have a significant impact on the well-being of 40 per cent of Canadian children who are affected by family breakdown, the three-quarters of a million children in Canada living with their mothers in poverty.
We need to arrive at adequate guidelines for support payments through an accurate evaluation of the needs children have. As the government-released background to this report states, the report has been released to ensure informed public discussion on the child support guidelines option.
It is based on the work of three economists contracted separately by the department to examine the economic models used to estimate expenditures on children, identify the strengths and weaknesses of each model, suggest appropriate approaches and provide data using those
June 15, 1992

approaches in simulation with family expenditure survey data provided by Statistics Canada.
The report makes absorbing though technical reading. As I mentioned, it is available to the public as are copies of the studies completed by the three economists.
The Department of Justice has also contributed to a committee of two economists, an accountant and a legal anthropologist. That committee produced a report which gave an independent review of the literature and studied the suitability of various economic methods for estimating expenditures on children in Canada.
The results of the work of that group have not been included in the document released by the minister. The only reference to it states, and I quote from page 4 of the report: "The report contains two very different conclusions regarding economic modelling and the best way of measuring the cost of children. This came about because the participants brought to the project two fundamentally different views of how to approach the problem of estimating child expenditures."
The report also mentions that there were time constraints involved. It is clear that the primary reason for exclusion is the fundamentally different views brought to the project by this group. Were this an independent body or an independent inquiry responsible to the House of Commons and not an internal Department of Justice project we and the public would have access to that report. As it stands now, we do not.
It certainly would not cost more money if the report was to the House of Commons rather than the Department of Justice, would it? So as we are not saving money in this case, one might ask if we are going to save any money for example on the studies that the Department of Justice has assumed on behalf of the former Law Reform Commission of Canada.
I leave it to the members of this House to ponder yet again the question of why this government and this department is so eager to do this kind of work in the House as opposed to outside where we can all observe the findings, where we can learn from and engage in informed public discussions.
The members present might be interested to know that this other report, what I will call the fourth report, suggested an entirely different approach to the economic models proposed for examination after the non-econo-
Govemment Orders
mists on the team questioned the assumptions implicit in them and after they raised some points which got the economists working with them looking at the models under a new light, perhaps a more reality-based light.
The fourth report found that there were many limitations to the existing economic research. It was found that there had been statistically unreliable results from this research. Further, some results showed negative childrearing costs. In the real world, it is not unusual for a mother to take maternity leave and then work fewer hours in the paid work force. Such a situation results in those economic models showing a negative cost in raising that baby. Perhaps the academics have missed something here.
What we are saying in this report is that while the mother may have earned a set amount of money, originally she made certain cutbacks in her expectations and therefore spent less money when the baby came along. By doing that, these studies have shown that in fact she is spending less money even though she has a child which is supposedly costing her more.
At the very least it would be most useful for us to have all of the information available to have a complete picture of what we are dealing with including all of the warts, false assumptions and mistakes that have been made if we are truly to have what the minister has identified as informed public discussion of child support guidelines.
In conclusion, I would like to say we are pleased to have the opportunity to work on these amendments to the Divorce Act and the Family Order and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act.
We want to encourage the minister to continue to move in a direction that will address child support guidelines. We also want to encourage the government to examine closely the taxation of child support payments, a situation which, to quote from one man who said to Mary Mclver of Homemaker's: "Because my wife and I are living apart I get rewarded with a tax break and she gets screwed".
In a recent Statistics Canada study, it was shown that the per capita income of families receiving support payments was 41 per cent of the per capita income of the support payer's family. This issue needs to be looked at soon.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
I would also encourage the minister to carry further her commitment to the well-being of Canada's children, to work hard in her caucus to support those initiatives that will really benefit the hundreds of thousands of Canadian children who continue to exist in poverty.
Thke another look at a national child care program. This government has not provided any improved access to child care. Lack of affordable, accessible, non-profit child care is one of the major reasons for keeping poor Canadians, particularly women and single mothers, out of the work force.
Thke another look at the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan. Take another look at the decision to cut the co-op housing program. Take another look at better funding for job training programs. These are the kinds of programs that will give Canadian women the help they need to provide adequate support to their children, the opportunities they need to get good jobs and provide for their families.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works) moved: that Bill C-82, an act to amend the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the National Housing Act and to amend another act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
He said: It is a pleasure for me to speak briefly on these rather important measures that pertain to housing
and to confirm that they will be referred to a legislative committee.
I had understood that this was perhaps more in accordance with what the original arrangement had been agreed upon rather than to try and do it in all stages as we had discussed earlier.
The purpose of this bill is to refine the legislation governing federal housing policies and programs. There is nothing more important to Canadians in general than the state of their housing. The management and access of financing are key to this. It is kind of interesting to see how things have changed in that regard. I was reading the other day a quote from the Danish writer, Henrik Ibsen. He was talking about housing in those days in his celebrated work A Doll's House. He said that there can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt.
I suggest to the House that this is exactly the opposite now and that one has to have access to borrowing and debt in order to enjoy the kind of amenities in housing that Canadians feel they are entitled to have.
The purpose of this bill is to refine the legislation governing federal housing policy and programs. The government is putting forward these amendments with three important principles in mind.
Public loan insurance under the National Housing Act should promote reasonable, equal access to housing finance, and lowest feasible costs and over-all self-sufficiency of the mortgage insurance fund.
In both market and social housing programs, Canada Mortgage and Housing seeks out and takes advantage of opportunities to improve the cost-effectiveness of the programs. The efficiency of their delivery and the ongoing effectiveness is basic and Canada Mortgage and Housing should and must exercise responsibility for its financing activities within a framework and in accordance with standards promoted by the Department of Finance.
As the federal government's housing agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing works with other levels of government and a host of stakeholders to ensure that Canadians have equal access to decent, affordable, and adequate housing.
June 15, 1992

The corporation is responsible for promoting the construction of new homes, the repair and renovation of existing ones, and improving the level of housing conditions in general across our country.
Canada Mortgage and Housing is a leader in the development of new financial mechanisms to stimulate the private housing market. It also is at the forefront in providing social housing programs for Canadians most in need and it is the prime source of housing expertise right across the board.
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and National Housing Act contain the legislative authority for Canada Mortgage and Housing to cany out its mandate of helping to house Canadians, a mandate which everyone involved with the corporation takes very seriously indeed.
We recognize the importance of being able to change with the times and to ensure that we will be able to carry out our mandate effectively in the future. That is why the House is being asked to consider very seriously the amendments contained in Bill C-82.
These amendments introduce new financial and administrative measures designed to improve the efficiency of CMHC's business operations. The corporation will be able to operate more effectively by improving over-all cost-effectiveness, administration and the delivery of federal housing programs, and some of the main provisions of this legislation are as follows.
This bill will allow Canada Mortgage and Housing to assume more direct responsibility and accountability for its financial affairs. It will do this by enabling CMHC to obtain funding from and invest in the capital market.
The bill contains a provision to allow CMHC to directly finance social housing projects at lower interest rates. CMHC will look to the lending community as a source of funding to allow for the direct financing of social housing. This, we feel, could save more than $150 million in social housing costs over the next five years. By so doing it becomes evident these savings can be utilized for the benefit of the Canadian housing sector.
The Mortgage-Backed Securities program is often used when renewing assisted housing mortgages to obtain lower interest rates. Direct financing is another financial mechanism and the advantages of the various options included therein will be compared and perhaps levered in order to achieve the best possible rates which again will be of great benefit. The direct financing
Government Orders
provision will require Order in Council approval, needless to say, before it comes into force.
Another significant amendment involves requiring owners of assisted housing projects to accept as a condition of assistance that they will not sell their projects without CMHC approval. This provision is needed to help ensure that where CMHC agrees to provide assistance, the assisted housing remains as a societal asset which cannot be sold or converted for some other purpose without prior approval.
The existing legislation does not provide this support and it is possible for some assisted housing projects to be sold or taken out of the social housing portfolio if sponsors wish to take advantage of market appreciation. This is, of course, contrary to the federal government's goal of maintaining assisted housing for social housing clients over the long term.
The proposed amendment would clearly establish the government's intent to preserve this stock of existing housing. It will reinforce clauses in project operating agreements to ensure that owners maintain the social purpose of the housing for the life of their agreement with Canada Mortgage and Housing.
This bill also contains provisions which would allow CMHC, depending on its future business needs, to consider the option of delegating some of its mortgage insurance responsibilities to selected approved lenders, provided that appropriate arrangements are in place for Canada Mortgage and Housing to monitor and control these delegated functions.
The amendments proposed also allow Canada Mortgage and Housing to supply housing-related property management and developmental services to federal government departments and agencies. It allows CMHC to supply services to support federal-provincial housing arrangements in a cost-effective manner. The proposed amendment makes it clear that CMHC may-it has the possibility, it is an enabling provision-charge fees for these services.
It is obvious to the House that Canada Mortgage and Housing has a contribution to make across the board to other government agencies as well in matters relating to housing. Probably these enlarged powers would have come in very handy in the case of Summerside when all resources were being focused in an effort to find a solution for that problem.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
With this amendment, Canada Mortgage and Housing would no longer be required to acquire ownership of the relevant property in order to apply its expertise. Over the years, Canada Mortgage and Housing has accumulated extensive, specialized expertise in housing-related property management and development. As I mentioned earlier, we know that many other federal departments and agencies would benefit from it.
The Canada Mortgage Loan Insurance Program is a vital component of facilitating Canadians access to mortgage funds which are needed to acquire decent and affordable housing. We want to continue to provide that kind of assistance in the future. Bill C-82 will therefore increase the existing limit on outstanding loan insurance from the current $60 billion up to $100 billion. The new limit of $100 billion is estimated to be adequate for the next five years.
The bill also contains a number of amendments to consolidate CMHC's borrowing authority. These amendments will give CMHC access to financial markets, modernize its investment authorities and rationalize its income tax status. There will be one central statutory authority for CMHC to borrow to fund its program loans and investments and financial management. This means that the agency will enjoy more flexibility in finding sources of funding and will be able to take advantage of favourable interest rates and conditions.
The income tax exemption for the mortgage insurance fund and the guarantee funds will also be removed. This is intended to have CMHC taxed on the same basis as financial institutions and registered insurance companies. Other amendments are included of a purely administrative or housekeeping nature in order to provide clarification of various provisions.
Briefly, I have presented some of the highlights of this legislation which I hope will be given favourable consideration and provide a clearer understanding of what the government is trying to accomplish with Bill C-82.
I would like to take a moment to speak about the role which Canada Mortgage and Housing has played throughout its history in helping to facilitate proper
housing for Canadians and to respond to various challenges.
In my reading the other day I came across some incidents where a former president was reminiscing about the days when C.D. Howe was responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing. I believe this occurred on April 1, 1946 and he was reminiscing about how Mr. Howe needed to respond to the needs of some 16,000 families of war veterans who needed housing. Shortly after that, there was a further need to respond to conditions implicit in the Korean war, so Defence Construction Limited was created.
Since its inception in 1946, CMHC has carried out under varying circumstances adjustments to conform with the evolving needs of Canadians of many different kinds of housing assistance. This has traditionally involved providing assistance to the most disadvantaged of Canadians and encouraging self-sufficiency in the private housing market to support the financial markets and the housing industry.
The government, as colleagues know, has a number of social housing programs in place to assist those Canadians who cannot obtain affordable, suitable, and adequate shelter in the private market.
The government will continue to do what it can to assist households in need across this country through its programs. It will continue to spend approximately $2 billion annually and about $10 billion over the next five years to help meet the housing needs of low-income Canadians.
As colleagues know, at the present time over 650,000 social housing units are being assisted. This will allow CMHC to maintain its obligations to those that it now assists.
One of the most important jobs that Canada Mortgage and Housing does on behalf of the government is to make sure there is mortgage money available for people who want to finance the purchase of a home. Through its mortgage loan insurance program Canada Mortgage and Housing helped over 186,000 households last year to obtain access to home ownership. That is a record for Canada Mortgage and Housing, representing $13.3 bil-
June 15, 1992

lion in business taking the total of insurance in force to some $58.3 billion.
The federal government has been looking into creative ways to attract new sources of funding to respond to the housing needs of low to moderate income Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that there may have been an arrangement concluded since I began to speak that would involve proceeding through all stages of the bill tonight. If this is the case, I will conclude and simply thank the members from London East and Edmonton East for their understanding in consenting to this rather summary and cursory way of proceeding with this important legislation.
I know that this was not the original intent. I also know that my colleagues opposite had to interrupt important business to come back and facilitate this measure. It is important to Canadians. It is important to the agency and I want to thank them very much for their flexibility.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for those kind remarks. We are trying to facilitate the workings of the House and to deal with legislation that is important to this House and to this country.
Let me take a few moments to speak to this bill. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-82, an act to amend the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the National Housing Act. Both of these acts have a long history in this country and have played a crucial role in the development of housing and the promotion of home ownership for all Canadians.
The federal government made excursions directly into the housing sector when a shortage of accommodation occurred during the Second World War which created some difficulties. In response to this crisis, the government created a Crown corporation, the Wartime Housing Corporation, with a budget for communities where a shortage of housing retarded defence projects.
After the war, in an effort to provide housing for returning soldiers, the federal government transferred the assets of the old Crown corporation to the newly created Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Now called the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC was legislated to administer the National Housing Act of 1944. This included the administration of
Government Orders
loans for housing and the construction of public housing. As the economic circumstances of Canada changed throughout each decade so did the housing needs of Canadians.
Through amendments to both the acts, the House of Commons addressed these challenges and tackled Canada's housing problems.
In 1949 the NHA was amended to provide social housing for Canadians in need through cost-shared programs between the federal government and the provincial governments.
In 1954, the federal government changed the Bank Act and the CMHC Act and replaced direct lending with a mortgage loan insurance program which provided the foundation for the private mortgage market in Canada.
In 1964, the acts were further amended to address the problems of urban renewal and rapid population growth in urban centres. In the 1970s and 1980s, rapid inflation changed housing affordability forever, as we all know. The price of a home increased over 200 per cent in some areas of the country. In the communities in and around Toronto a family now needs an annual income of approximately $60,000 to afford the average starter home. In the Vancouver area, the income required is about $50,000 a year for that starter home. In my home city of London, Ontario, you need an average income of $42,000 in order to afford a starter home.
Under these tough economic conditions, CMHC has had to adapt to meet the changing requirements of Canadians looking to buy their first home as well as needy Canadians trying to afford the ever-increasing cost of rental accommodation. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has successfully manoeuvred these difficult economic obstacles. Within the confines of the limitations imposed by this government, it has delivered programs across the country.
In 1988, the then Auditor General, Kenneth Dye, named CMHC as one of the eight shining examples of high-performing organizations within the Canadian bureaucracy. As well, in 1988 CMHC was surveyed by an international management consulting firm which found it to have a high level of employee satisfaction. More recently it was listed in the publication called The Hundred Best Companies to Work for in Canada.

Government Orders
CMHC has served the housing sector very well. It has served home owners and people seeking affordable housing very well. Despite the budgetary constraints imposed by this government, it has served low-income Canadians to the best of its ability. With the help of CMHC programs, the housing industry in Canada has shown a remarkable ability to change in response to changing economic and market conditions.
Canada's industry increased its productive capacity sevenfold in the 30 years from 1946 to 1976 and it has expanded ever since. The evidence of successful adaptation to change in the past very strongly suggests the industry will be equally capable of responding effectively to the evolving markets and circumstances of the future.
The National Housing Act and the CMHC Act have been amended in the past by the House of Commons as a reaction to changes in the Canadian economy. However, reacting to changes in the economy is only one reason to introduce amendments to these two acts as we are being asked to do tonight.
Through many of the administrative amendments of the National Housing Act and the CMHC Act included in Bill C-82, CMHC can continue to maintain its high level of efficiency and cost effectiveness. There is another important reason for the need to adapt these instruments of national housing development. The housing sector itself is a vital component of the Canadian economy. CMHC cannot simply react but it must also become a vehicle for economic health and growth in this country. Housing activity in Canada has played an important role in the economic advancement of the country, as we all know.
Housing has had the advantage of being labour intensive, focusing much of its economic benefit in the locality or region where the housing is constructed. It is required in all parts of the country and it has considerable economic ripple effects beyond the actual building site. It creates not only construction jobs, but jobs in the sectors that must service the construction as well as spin-off jobs in servicing the communities which are being constructed. Therefore a comprehensive housing policy and a well-administered housing corporation is
well suited for use as federal tools of macroeconomic stimulation.
As we face the challenges of the future, this House must again examine these acts to facilitate the most efficient operation of CMHC and its administration of the National Housing Act.
Bill C-82 provides for the authorization of approved lenders such as banks and others to act for the CMHC in insuring loans. The CMHC will set up the criteria which allows approved lenders to process the mortgage insurance, and the Crown corporation will set up a rigorous monitoring system, which will enable them to supervise these procedures. It is expected to take two to three years to implement these changes fully. Ultimately it should make the operations of CMHC more efficient; it should speed up the processing of mortgages.
The bill also increases the limit of loan insurance the CMHC can now authorize. The current limit of $60 billion has almost been reached and the new limit of $100 billion is expected to be adequate to service the demand for mortgage insurance until 1997.
This proposed legislation also closes up a loophole. The owners of assisted housing will be prevented from selling their projects without CMHC approval. This amendment is long overdue because there have been some horror stories with respect to assisted housing being converted to something other than was planned and designed for.
This ensures that CMHC subsidized housing will be maintained as social housing and not sold as a market rental project. This amendment will allow for better enforcement of the legislation, and ensures government housing subsidies are protected and targeted to those in need.
Another amendment to the National Housing Act enables CMHC to develop and manage housing projects without having to buy the land. CMHC can be contracted on by a government department, for a fee, to administer lands and develop housing.
Currently we all know that CMHC must first acquire the land before developing any housing on it. This fee-for-service change also allows CMHC to sell some
June 15, 1992

of its services to non-profit housing corporations and to co-op housing projects.
These services could include, for example, training programs and computerization. This amendment will be of most interest to the provinces, which have the option of purchasing these services in a block for all of their housing projects.
The provinces have other alternatives. They can provide these services through their provincial housing ministries or they can contract these services from the private sector.
Perhaps the most significant change affected by this bill is the clause which would allow the CMHC to directly finance and refinance loans. This change alone is estimated to be able to save government over $150 million over five years and I would hope that the government in saving this money would recirculate these savings to produce more affordable housing for those people in need.
CMHC studies have shown that the Crown corporation could provide lower and more favourable rates for the first mortgage of many social housing projects. The subsidies that CMHC spends on social housing projects are based to a large extent on the interest needed on the first mortgage.
By lending itself money at a better rate, savings can be achieved through lower subsidies. Other savings will be achieved through the creation of a more competitive financing environment.
The entrance of CMHC into the lending market will create I believe more competition in the financial community. Since the social housing projects are cost shared between the federal and provincial governments, this amendment would have the reciprocal effect of saving the provinces money because of the reduced subsidy level.
Another major amendment will expand CMHC's investment authority. Currently the Crown corporation is limited to investing in government securities or guaranteed government securities. This legislation will allow broader authority, subject to government review.
Last, the bill changes CMHC's income tax status, removing its tax exempt status for some funds. This will make CMHC more like a financial institution and registered insurance company. Currently CMHC is limited to $25 million of accumulated surplus. This means that any additional net profit is turned over to the government as dividends. The extra profit already goes
Government Orders
to the government and taxes. This bill will result in the money being shifted from dividends paid to the government to taxes paid to the government.
These amendments to the National Housing Act and the CMHC Act will allow for greater efficiency in the operation of the Crown corporation.
In these times of economic hardship, the federal government must pursue cost saving measures while at the same time maintaining an adequate level of service. Bill C-82 has introduced amendments which are not only cost saving but are also cost effective.
These legislative changes are aimed specifically at administrative functions and operational structures. What is not included in this bill are the policy changes necessary to ensure that federal housing programs are as efficient as possible in meeting the housing needs of Canadians.
While this bill takes care of the administrative functions of the CMHC, improving its efficiency, housing policy itself has been neglected by this government.
The legacy of CMHC has been to learn from the past and adapt itself to meet the future requirements of Canadians. Unfortunately this government is neglecting to make the policy changes that are required to deal with the housing problems of today. Moreover, it lacks the vision to address the housing problems of tomorrow.
Despite the accomplishment of CMHC, there are still challenges that this government must address. There are still many Canadians who are inadequately served by the marketplace and for whom government assistance is required to ensure that they are adequately housed. The aging of Canada's population presents a number of challenges to public and private sectors alike and the government must now begin to implement new and more innovative ways of dealing with the housing needs of this emerging population.
The federal government must implement policy changes that will address sectoral changes that are expected. Canada's housing requirements are projected to decline considerably over the next two decades. There will not be as many housing units produced as there were in the past unless the trends in our population growth change and change dramatically. While the markets for new production are shrinking, they are also becoming more discrete and specific. The federal government must facilitate the development and servicing of these newly emerging markets.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
This government must also facilitate the development of housing technologies with the view to exporting Canadian expertise and services in this field. Similarly, an industrial capacity must be nurtured which is capable of responding to the emerging economic importance of renovations of Canada's existing housing stock.
As the century comes to a close, a considerable proportion of Canada's housing stock will require the upgrading of its electrical, plumbing and mechanical systems in order to preserve its operating efficiencies. This presents the prospect of a great deal of labour intensive work which to some extent will replace jobs through the decline in new production.
This will also entail facilitating the development of an industry with a different mix of skills from those required for new construction. The federal government must acknowledge the importance of renovating Canada's existing housing stock and facilitate that end now, not ten years from now. The scrapping of the residential rehabilitation program as it related to rental stock by this government some years ago was not forward looking on behalf of this government.
The policy environment in Canada is well tuned to the development of jointly shared solutions to the issues in the housing field. A wide-reaching network has been established between all the participants active in the production, consumption and the regulation of housing. However, this government is not willing to become a responsible partner in these joint solutions.
For example, currently only 6 per cent of Canadians are served by social housing programs. There are 15 per cent or more, over one million Canadians, who are still in core housing need. Despite such overwhelming need, the federal government has consistently cut social housing programs in consecutive budgets.
The most recent budget will amount to a 50 per cent reduction in the construction of new social housing units within three years. As this is a cost-shared program, the federal government is letting down the provinces in
forcing reductions in provincial allocations, particularly in the have not provinces.
The recent budget cuts also eliminated the co-op housing program. This is a cost-effective housing program which provides mixed income housing, not massive housing projects for the poor, which unfortunately and inevitably are labelled as ghetto housing.
Studies have indicated that the problem of social mix appears to be increasing in recent decades. Whether this is because of a shift in society's goals or an increasing awareness of the impact of poor mixing is not clear. What is evident, though, is that housing policy must not be viewed simply in terms of delivering numbers of housing units. Rather, it must also be related to the placement of those units, physically and socially, within the community.
A CMHC document concludes that the emphasis on so-called targeting in the name of program efficiency has resulted in the casualty of social mix. By eliminating co-op housing, a program in which mixed income housing was a key element, this government has sacrificed healthy community development. Despite changes made to the program over a year ago which met the targeting requirements of this government, this government still sacrificed this program.
Rather than facing the challenges of providing a healthy community environment, this government has opted out of its responsibilities. This government is also ignoring other housing problems that demand immediate attention.
The family projects, where 37.5 per cent of residents are children, have the highest incidence of crime. The program also puts disabled seniors and single mothers at risk as well.
The desperately needed repairs to many public housing units have made the federal government for all intents and purposes a slum landlord.
A 1990 public housing evaluation indicated a serious problem with security and crime has put almost half of our residents in danger, especially women and children.

There are 13,000 public housing units which fail to meet minimum property standards and more than half of all the units barely meet these standards and are at risk of falling below standard.
The money this government must allocate for renovations has not met these immediate requirements. Given the aging of these public housing units, these conditions have worsened and will continue to worsen and the costs are forever increasing.
Public housing was developed to provide affordable and adequate housing. The public housing program must be deemed a failure because the evaluation indicates that two out of every five tenants still live in core need because their housing costs are too high.
Since 80 per cent of the total repair budget was required within three years, an increase in the budget should have been accompanied by a needs based allocation of funds. This government has deprived CMHC of the resources it needs to meet the needs of these Canadians and provide adequate shelter.
Given the current difficulties with urban crime and safety, this government should get its own properties in order and provide a safe living environment for its tenants.
The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program was also drastically cut by the federal government in recent years and I have already noted that.
The program is needed to upgrade our private housing stock for Canadians in core need. Statistical evidence indicates that future demand for new housing construction will be generated primarily through immigration. Despite this, the federal government has not facilitated the development of any housing programs that would meet the shelter requirements of legitimate refugee claimants and the increased immigration population in this country.
The federal government must acknowledge its role as a partner in ensuring healthy Canadian communities. While C-82 creates an efficient administrative framework for the Crown corporation, it does not allow for efficient policy delivery.
CMHC's five-year corporate plan outlines the Crown corporation's commitment to "promoting good living environment" and "ensuring that housing and its supporting urban framework combine to produce quality of life in urban environments".
The federal government has not provided the legislative framework which would allow the CMHC to meet
Government Orders
these goals. Instead, the federal government has cut the CMHC's program budget and limited its activities to studies, consultations, demonstrations, evaluations, seminars and conferences.
In the previous corporate plan, CMHC stressed the importance of addressing the problems of "displaced low-income earners, the increase in homelessness, and the eroding safety and security". However, this focus has been eliminated in the current corporate plan due to lack of government commitment.
Although I applaud the efficiency measures aimed at CMHC's administrative functions, I want to chastise the government for ignoring possible improvements to policy efficiency. With a projected savings of $150 million over five years, I want to urge the government to use these savings to fulfil its responsibilities as a partner in the housing sector.
It really is a partner, along with the provinces, the municipalities, the private non-profit sector, the co-op sector, in working toward solving Canada's housing problems.
While the government might be introducing legislative changes to Bill C-82 to make CMHC work better, it remains that this government must provide the leadership to have affordable housing in this country. It must not relegate its responsibilities to the provinces, the municipalities and other groups.
So while we are supportive of this bill, I look forward to the next stage, of asking some questions of the minister relating to the administrative changes being proposed in this bill.
Let me just say one other thing.
CMHC has served this country well. While the country is trying to redefine itself in terms of its constitutional responsibilities the fact is that housing in this country has been served well because all levels of government, the private sector and the non-profit sectors have all worked together. CMHC has been that glue.
If someone wanted to be really cynical with respect to this bill, and I do not want to be too partisan or cynical, one could say, because this has been a very successful Crown corporation-and I can tell the government right now that we are going to draw a line in the sand if it moves to privatize this Crown corporation which provides equality and equity in terms of affordable housing and mortgage insurance across this whole country.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the urgency of this measure, I would ask that it be referred not to the standing committee but to Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, it might reasonably be inferred from the fact that the NDP caucus went along with the unanimous consent to run this bill through the House in its entirety today, correctly in this instance, that it is the intention of the NDP caucus to support the bill at all stages.
That is so principally because, unlike much of the legislation that the government introduces in this House, this bill will do no great harm and may indeed accomplish some small good. The two areas in which we are most interested are clauses 48 and 18.
Clause 48 will essentially prevent land flipping of social housing projects of the sort that we saw for example in Cloverdale in Montreal. A private developer got a bagful of government money on the promise of providing social housing, built a project and then sold it off to people who rammed it into the private sector. The social housing component was gone, the guy kept the bag of money and the new owners are presumably making a great deal more. CMHC was left holding the empty bag. With luck this bill will prevent that sort of thing in the future. To that degree it is commendable.
Clause 18 allows for direct financing of social housing projects by CMHC. It is assumed that this will give CMHC far greater flexibility in its operations and therefore could conceivably allow savings of up to some $150 million over the next five years. This is a best case scenario but we all wish the corporation well and hope that this comes to pass.
This would be a much more significant number and a much more significant hope if the government had shown any intention of financing any more social housing. As we know from the budget presented in this House this year the government's intention is in fact the reverse. It is scrambling as quickly as it can to extricate
itself from virtually all prior social housing commitments.
It merely remains to note that new social housing projects will be cut from their current levels by about 51 per cent over the next two years as a consequence of this year's budget, for example. The co-op housing program is gone completely, and I will return to that in just a moment.
Of course the government is, to be charitable, stalling on additional financing required by those housing co-ops built under the ILM, the indexed link mortgage program, introduced in the mid-1980s. As a result of that program and consequent housing charges imposed by CMHC in an effort to not offend local private landlords, boosting housing charges in the co-ops to a level which the residents cannot afford to pay, there are tremendous shortfalls going on in ILM housing co-ops across the country.
These shortfalls amount in total to a requirement of possibly some $20 million. This too is money that is not forthcoming at this time, which is why some of the more recently constructed co-ops are in serious trouble.
I would like to draw one quick lesson from this, if I may. I do not intend to use up a great deal of House time on this but it seems to me to be instructive that in this bill the government basically is cleaning up the system whereby it can continue to give bags of money to private developers who promise to build housing with some social element in it. This is at the same time the government has axed completely the paltry $6.5 million annual expenditure on the federal co-op housing program and has radically cut back on its commitment to non-profit housing programs.
What this tells me is that the government, in fact, suffers an ideological bias in this regard. It is simply put this way. The government feels better about turning money over to private sector developers to create housing in which tenants will live always under the control of that private sector developer. It feels much better about doing that than it does about funding programs which would otherwise allow tenants to control their own housing.
June 15, 1992

Government Orders
This government lacks faith in the Canadian people. It assumes that lack of money is a clear indication of lack of responsibility and lack of ability. Therefore, because people without money cannot be trusted to devise and maintain and administer their own housing, we must have people of merit evidenced by the fact that somehow or other they already have money to do that for them.
This is the fundamental bias of the government that is expressed in many of its programs and policies across the vast host of issues but is clearly set out in its approach to social housing.
The real tragedy of this is that they could not be more wrong. Anyone dispassionately examining the record of co-op and non-profit housing in this country versus the record of housing provided with government assistance through the private sector, especially tenant housing, cannot conceivably come away from such a dispassionate examination concluding other than that if you put the responsibility for their own housing in the people's own hands you will have a more responsible, better administered, longer life and better maintained housing than you will if you place them in a standard tenant relationship to some private sector landlord.
The record is so crystal clear in this regard that the government's decisions of this year flying in the face of that historic evidence begs credulity and cannot be attributed to the result of any kind of dispassionate analysis of the actual programs.
Therefore, when I conclude it is quite literally blindly ideologically motivated and in the long term will do great disservice to the people of Canada.
However, if I may conclude that digression and get back to Bill C-82, I would say again on the face of it, it does no harm and maybe some small good. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it will enjoy our support.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to say a word or two with respect to Bill C-82 which is an act to amend the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the National Housing Act because as you know, I have rather a great interest in this area as the former Minister of State for Housing.
This bill does not make dramatic changes to either CMHC or to the National Housing Act but it does deal in a number of areas that I think are very significant.
As you know, on the one hand there are a great many Canadians who own their own homes. In fact, 63 per cent to 64 per cent of all Canadian householders are home owners. On the other hand, about 21 per cent of all Canadian householders cannot afford to own their own homes and need some sort of assistance to be able to live in affordable and decent housing.
Right now the federal and provincial governments, all taxpayers because the money does come from all Canadians as taxpayers, do assist about one-third of that 21 per cent of Canadians who need some assistance in their housing. Right now there are some 650,000 units of housing across Canada receiving that kind of assistance.
Clauses 18 and 48 of this bill deal with the assisted housing situation. In fact, clause 18 allows CMHC to go out and to get into the direct financing business in order to provide the money and the funds to finance that assisted housing, those 650,000 homes that are now provided across the country. Also, CMHC can find the financing for the other two-thirds of that 21 per cent, or 14 per cent in effect, of Canadian householders needing some further assistance.
Hopefully, the ability of CMHC to get into the direct financing of additional social housing will mean more assisted housing. I suppose in an indirect way it will provide that because the government faced with an enormous deficit and national debt has been trying to find ways to economize.
One of the ways it has been looking at is to have CMHC do the direct financing itself to try to cut down the financing costs in order to have the wherewithal to provide as much additional social housing as it has budgeted for in the next two years.
Without this ability, without this provision in the legislation I suspect there would even be a smaller budget, fewer funds available for assisted housing in the next two years at least than was indicated in the budget of February 25.
Clause 48 of course puts a cap on the ability of assisted housing builders, the non-profit organizations that are loaned money with a CMHC guarantee and then receive subsidies. It puts a cap on its ability to sell off those social housing or assisted housing projects without the consent of CMHC.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
That is a good thing because as other members have pointed out, there have been problems in the past as far as the sale of social housing complexes to the private sector, taking those housing units out of assisted housing and depriving Canadians needing housing assistance of those homes and those units of housing.
I suspect this provision is not going to apply retroactively. I am sure the minister would like to comment on that a little later. Also, this provision is only going to be effective for the term of the mortgage financing through CMHC which is generally a 35-year period.
While this clause is going to protect the Government of Canada and the taxpayers of Canada as far as their investment in assisted housing is concerned, it will not apply retroactively as I understand it. It also is only going to apply for new commitments for 35 years from the time of the commitment and will not go beyond that.
It would be nice and helpful if somehow legally we could find a way to allow these kinds of provisions to apply retroactively and also to allow them to continue on in future, bearing in mind the fact that Canadian taxpayers have actually provided for these facilities. That commitment probably will not come to an end after 35 years.
There is one concern I have with respect to the conditions for consent. That relates to whether or not there will be consent given by CMHC and by the government if a project is to be sold with the purpose of using the net receipts to produce more social housing units in the future than there are at present.
One of the possibilities within this whole area of providing assisted housing is with the appreciation of land, with the appreciation of housing, it may very well be possible.to sell a particular project and to use the funds to develop new projects and in fact develop more housing units using the same investment made originally. That, I hope, will be taken into account by CMHC and by the government in the days ahead.
As far as social housing generally is concerned, it seems to me that all of us face a major difficulty. That is the cost involved in providing assisted housing down the road. We still have a lot of people to try to look after. It is going to take an awful lot of taxpayers' money if we are going to do it unless we find some new and innovative ways.
I have brought one way to the attention of the minister. I know CMHC is aware of the Delaney Street
concept in San Francisco in the United States. It is a project where the residents build the housing themselves. They finance it through small businesses they are engaged in. Not a dollar or cent of public money is in that project, yet it is one of the projects that is a showcase for the city of San Francisco. Everybody in San Francisco is extremely proud of it and extremely proud of what can be done by individuals using their own initiative.
Again I say to the minister, to CMHC and to the government that this is a model that perhaps will not solve all the housing problems we have down the road, but it is one that certainly has some possibilities to solve a good many of them.
The other aspect of the bill relates to home ownership. Clause 25 and clause 7 relate to the mortgage insurance aspect of CMHC's role and the ability of CMHC to insure mortgages that allow people to buy their own homes.
Clause 25 obviously is a very helpful provision because it means that the total limit on the mortgage insurance fund of CMHC is being increased from $60 billion to $100 billion. That means that CMHC is going to have the ability to ensure a greater volume of mortgages, a greater dollar value of mortgages. That means more Canadians will be able to own their own homes.
All of us would agree that is a good thing, whether we are in favour of social housing or assisted housing as everybody in this House is. For those people who can afford to pay for their own homes, then they too need some assistance through the mortgage insurance fund and this is a good thing.
Clause 7 also relates to the mortgage insurance fund. It gives CMHC the power to delegate loan insurance to other governmental bodies or other private sector bodies.
I suppose that begs the question for all of us as to whether this is opening the door toward the privatization of the mortgage insurance fund. Or perhaps under the constitutional discussions it will be the peeling off of the government's commitment and responsibilities to mortgage insurance to provincial governments. I hope that the minister in his remarks during Committee of the Whole proceedings will address that issue as well. There is one thing that is not in this bill that I had hoped would be in it. That is the question of mortgage insurance for something called the reverse mortgage.
June 15, 1992

The reverse mortgage is a provision for people who own their own homes. These people have a lot of capital locked into their own homes. People perhaps have their own home as their only investment, but it is a very major investment. These same people may veiy well be living on extremely modest incomes. A lot of senior citizens are in this category. They are asset rich in their homes but they are income poor in the amount of money they have to look after themselves. As a result, even though they have this great asset locked in, they often have to live below the poverty line.
The reverse mortgage concept would allow senior citizens, and others for that matter, who have this capital locked into their own home to get it out while they are alive. They could still live in their own home, but get their investment out either in a lump sum, several lump sums, a monthly payment, or a yearly payment on a program basis. This would allow them to improve their own standard of living, allowing them to live affordably and decently while still in their own home.
There are such things as reverse mortgages now. There are one or two mortgage companies in Canada that provide for reverse mortgages, but other financial institutions are very reluctant to get into the reverse mortgage business because there is no such thing as reverse mortgage insurance.
This bill could veiy well have given the authority to CMHC and the mortgage insurance fund to allow them to insure reverse mortgages. I had hoped that this bill would have allowed that but, unfortunately, that is not the case. There will be a lot of Canadians right across our country who will be disappointed as a result of that fact.
I hope once again that the government, CMHC and the minister are looking very carefully and still examining the possibility of introducing a reverse mortgage insurance program. It would be a great boon to Canadians and most helpful to many senior citizens who are living below the poverty line and have this great asset locked in that they cannot access without getting rid of their own home and having to suddenly move into circumstances they do not want and which would be unfamiliar to them.
Government Orders
Finally, I would like to comment on a statement by the hon. member for London East when he was referring to the condition of public housing across Canada. I am trying to recollect from memory, but I think there are some 300,000 public housing units across Canada that are assisted by the federal and provincial governments.
It is quite true that a study found that there were things that had to be done to improve that public housing stock. By and large that study found that the public housing stock we have is generally in good shape, that the residents of that public housing are very happy and that it has been of great benefit to them.
I can say that there are people across this country who live in public housing projects, people such as Margaret Mitchell in Vancouver. That is not the Margaret Mitchell who sits in this House but another Margaret Mitchell in Vancouver who would be shocked by the comment that there is something wrong with public housing. She is so enthusiastic about public housing that she is the president of a public housing tenants association in Vancouver. She is so enthusiastic about it that she wants the government, CMHC and the minister to build a lot more of the same thing because it does such a great job.
The last thing I would like to do on that subject is to draw the attention of the House once more to the fact that about two weeks ago in the city of Ibronto, there was an international conference held entitled the Organizing for Social Change Conference, sponsored by the International Federation of Settlements and Neighbourhood Centres.
The delegates to that conference toured public housing projects in metropolitan Ibronto. After touring those projects they made comments such as the following: "If that is inner city, it is nothing like we know inner city to be" said one American."We do not see that in Cleveland." "I have yet to see any slums in Ibronto."
That speaks for itself as far as public housing is concerned. It has been and continues to be a great triumph. There is no doubt that improvements can be made. Improvements can be made in everything and should be made. I trust that the minister and CMHC are going to be doing that. By and large, we have done an enormous amount in the area of housing in this country.

Government Orders
I trust that this bill will reinforce that. We are going to see the federal government playing what I believe is the role it should be playing. Quite frankly, notwithstanding some of the comments that have been made during the constitutional debate, I believe the federal government clearly has a constitutional role in housing and that it should continue to play that. I trust that this bill will reinforce that effort.
Mr. David Ding>vall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address myself to second reading of Bill C-82, an act to amend the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the National Housing Act and to amend another act in consequence thereof.
My colleague from London East has outlined the position quite clearly and succinctly of our party with regard to this particular piece of legislation. As hon. members will know, there are a number of traditions within the act which intends to amend a number of statutes. I call to the attention of the House a number of important clauses, clauses Nos. 7, 24, 25, 48, 49 and 18. These are the major provisions of this bill which, as I said earlier, were addressed by my colleague from London East.
While the subject matter of housing is important for Canadians, I wish to bring to the attention of the House particular concerns that I have with regard to the expenditures or lack of expenditures under the social housing envelope of Canada Mortgage and Housing particularly when it relates to what we know in Atlantic Canada as the RRAP program.
Unfortunately, my colleague from St. John's East is not in the Chamber. I would have hoped that he would have stayed and participated in the debate. Some individuals would say that he is here. Others would say that he is here but he is not all there. However, having said that, the hon. member knows that the point I am attempting to make is that funding for the RRAP program in Atlantic Canada requires the support of all members from Atlantic Canada.
In a few moments I would like to address my comments to the minister of employment. I do not believe he has shown any leadership whatsoever in supporting the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing in attempting to find additional income in revenues from the Government of Canada for the various programs which will be needed under the RRAP program.
The hon. member shouts from his seat. I let him shout and I will give him the opportunity to participate later in the debate since he is so concerned about the RRAP budget. I can conclude from that he will support me in supporting the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing in order to obtain additional funding and in order to provide the citizens in Atlantic Canada with that kind of funding and thereafter in order to increase the employment opportunities in Atlantic Canada.
In my constituency, as I am sure the minister for housing can attest, in such metropolises as Glace Bay, Dominion, New Waterford, parts of Richmond county such as L'ardoise, Loch Lomond, Enon and Johnstown, as well as communities in Cape Breton county such as Birch Grove, Main-a-Dieu, the Victorias, South Bar, and a host of other ones, there is a large number of citizens who would like to avail themselves of RRAP.
RRAP needs more funding. I do not think any member can doubt that. In fact just the other evening at a special caucus meeting of our party my colleague from Kingston and the Islands, supported by my colleague from Saint-Leonard, made strong references and strong interventions that additional moneys were needed in that particular envelope in order to assist those individuals.
I want to clarify for members opposite, and particularly while the minister responsible for housing is in the House, what we are talking about here. Individuals, because of the restrictions which were placed on the RRAP funding, are being denied the opportunity to make application for that funding.
The figure in some municipalities, as the minister knows, is $16,000 to $17,000 and in other municipalities it may even be a little bit higher, urban as opposed to rural.
June 15, 1992

I say to the minister with great sincerity that a lot of those individuals may be over the allowable limit a small fraction and hence denied the opportunity to apply for the grant.
I do not think there would be too many members in this Elouse who could argue that one of the things that governments ought to do for senior citizens is to provide them with the necessary wherewithal in order to remain in their own homes. I think from a cost-effective perspective that is certainly the best route to pursue. In terms of attitude, in terms of quality of life or in terms of one's own well-being, they would prefer to remain in their own homes. But the problem is they do not have sufficient resources, either publicly or privately, to make the necessary renovations to their homes.
This is the point we tried to make with the minister's predecessor and it fell on deaf ears. In fact we raised this issue in the House and his predecessor dismissed all the recommendations and sound interventions made by all sorts of members of Parliament from the various political parties.
It is absolutely essential that within the next period of time, hopefully by September, the Government of Canada could avail itself of putting a much higher priority to giving greater amounts of money under RRAP.
We are talking about such renovations as new roofs on various homes. I know hon. members opposite, particularly the minister's predecessor in that portfolio, may or may not understand that senior citizens require them for their housing stock.
It may be the necessity of putting in a second washroom downstairs in an older home. It may be a request to put a new electrical system into a home. It may be the addition of a ramp for a person who has to use a wheelchair, a cane or a walker. It may necessitate renovations with regard to new windows and perhaps a new chimney. Those are the kinds of things that RRAP has been able to do over the years.
I do not think there is a place anywhere in the country where the need is greater than that in Atlantic Canada. That is not to suggest that such a program could not or would not be utilized in other regions of the country. In point of fact I think the need has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that in Atlantic Canada RRAP is needed.
Government Orders
In my own district, in the county of Cape Breton, there is in excess of 2,000 applicants who are awaiting the possibility of making an application for the purposes of funding under RRAP to make the kinds of necessary repairs that I alluded to in my previous remarks, as well as on previous occasions to the minister's predecessor. However that fell on deaf ears with his predecessor. I would hope the minister will show more initiative, more concern for those individuals who are seeking funding under RRAP.
RRAP, as we know it and as we understand it in Atlantic Canada, could in many ways be enhanced by other government agencies. Perhaps later in the debate the Minister of Employment and Immigration will join in to give his views, but I am somewhat concerned that we have under his auspices a program called Community Futures. I would hope the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing would share with his colleagues that a Community Futures organization in co-operation with Canada Mortgage and Housing ought to give careful consideration to the housing needs of a particular community, both in the short term as well as the long term.
However, if we talk to chairpersons of various Community Futures groups across this country, and in particular in Atlantic Canada, we find that very little-and I underline veiy little-is being done under the auspices of Community Futures. That is not to say to the minister that no Community Futures group is doing anything with regard to housing needs, but by and large they are not. I would hope the minister would give careful consideration to having that agency of the Government of Canada attempt, as best it can and within the resources of the federal government, to expand its horizons with regard to RRAP.
There is another advantage to RRAP that I am sure members must be aware of. I have heard my colleague from London East on numerous occasions and I know what a tremendous debater he is.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Charles Dingwall: Hon. members opposite agree. He has made repeated interventions in the House to the predecessor and to the present minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing that moneys put into social housing, particularly those which focus on RRAP, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, add immensely to increasing employment opportunities in rural and urban Canada.

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
I know my colleague, the former minister, is shaking his head because now he agrees. He sees the folly of his previous ways. I think he has had a change in attitude and a change in approach. It is never too late. It is never too late to change. Our only hope is that he will put additional pressure and give support to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing so that when he goes before the cabinet committee on economic development he will be able to see that moneys under RRAP not only provide needed assistance to senior citizens and other Canadians in terms of renovations to their homes but add immensely to increasing the employment base in Canada.
There are some who would argue that it adds to the employment base in Canada but not appreciably. I disagree. For communities in Nova Scotia such as the one the minister responsible for housing comes from or ones in Pictou county, Annapolis Valley, Cape Breton county, Halifax county and other parts in Atlantic Canada, that kind of economic spin-off would create meaningful jobs. It would utilize carpenters who are so massively unemployed across this country. It would add immensely to the construction industry. In many parts of this country unemployment is in excess of 70 per cent to 75 per cent in the various trades, whether they be plumbers or electricians. These are the kinds of individuals whom we represent in the Parliament of Canada.
That kind of money is better spent on the housing industry, as I know my colleague from London East would agree, than the $21 million being spent on a propaganda war for the minister of industry, trade and commerce. It is absolutely asinine to be buying photographs, newspaper advertisements and television advertisements when we could be providing much needed assistance to the housing industry, consequently making an appreciable difference in the employment rate.
I have disagreed with the present minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing on a number of issues, but I hope that the minister opposite shares my objectives. I am confident that the minister opposite
would want to have additional resources to answer those kinds of needs.
However, I am not certain that he has the support of his colleagues. I do not know if that minister, the phantom minister as I refer to him, the Minister of State for Small Businesses, has any understanding whatsoever of the housing needs in this country. I think that minister is more interested in having nice coloured photographs-


Some hon. members:: Booklets.


David Charles Dingwall: -and booklets printed in the United States to promote some of the programs in his own department. The money that is spent on that kind of a brochure, a glossy, multicoloured brochure, could be better spent on the housing needs of ordinary Canadians.
I do not know where the Minister of Communications is when it comes to the housing needs of Canadians. We have not seen any demonstrable signs from that minister to support the diligent efforts of the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing. We think this minister is the Lone Ranger. He is the only one concerned with the housing needs of Canadians.
We do not know if the Minister of Employment and Immigration understands the importance of housing or the housing needs in this country. We think this minister has all of his priorities wrong in terms of trying to develop jobs in this particular country.
I am somewhat saddened to say that the Minister of State for Small Businesses has been a complete and utter failure, and I say that with sincerity. He has been an utter failure in supporting real economic developments in this country. He is only exceeded in that capacity by the Minister of Communications. I do not know if that minister would understand the difference between an outhouse and a four-bedroom home in downtown Tbron-to.
I would hope that those members opposite would give serious consideration to supporting the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing in providing the necessary dollars so desperately needed in this country for housing, as alluded to by my colleague from London
June 15, 1992

Government Orders
East and in some of the comments I made regarding specific programs in terms of the RRAP program.
In conclusion, I reaffirm my support for the RRAP program. I reaffirm my support for the minister responsible in terms of possible additional moneys he might be able to obtain in furthering the objectives of that program, and lessening the restrictions which have been placed on that program, urban versus rural.
I speak in somewhat of a selfish manner if I may, but I think I have a duty and an obligation on behalf of those constituents that I represent to inform the minister and to inform this House that I have a large number of constituents who wish to avail themselves of the RRAP program, but because of the restrictions which have been placed by Canada Mortgage and Housing do not have that opportunity.
I hope that the minister would give serious consideration, if not during second reading but at Committee of the Whole as well as third reading stage to at least entertain the possible intention of going back to cabinet. Perhaps the Minister of State for Small Businesses may have a change of mind and lend his support, as well as the Minister of Communications, to get the necessary kinds of dollars that all of us in this House need.
I congratulate my colleague from London East who has carried the can on this particular bill, Bill C-82, as well as on the housing needs of Canadians for quite some time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. DeBlois in the chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in committee on Bill C-82, an act to amend the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the National Housing Act and to amend another act in consequence thereof.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
On Clause 3-


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could ask the minister a question with respect to clause 3(1) which will deal with 28(l)(d)(i) where it makes it possible for CMHC to incorporate subsidiaries subject to an Order in Council approval.
This as I understand it would have the effect of trying to implement fees for services authority under clause 49
as well as existing property development management authority, particularly a joint undertaking with others.
I was just wondering whether or not it is possible for CMHC to do that under its current formation as opposed to having to form a subsidiary company in order to do such undertakings.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, to my colleague opposite, this is really designed to deal with a situation like Granville Island, for example, in which it may be more expedient to deal with it in the form of a subsidiary organization. It is not meant to do anything radical to create a plethora of these organizations or anything like that and it may not really be something that is used a great deal. It is more an enabling situation.


Alan Redway: Mr. Chairman, since the minister has raised the issue of Granville Island, I would like to ask him whether it would be the intention of CMHC and the government to incorporate a separate body and transfer Granville Island to that separate organization and then privatize Granville Island.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I know of no intention at this time to do that. If the hon. member is making such a representation I will take it under advisement. However, it is not something that CMHC has any immediate plans to do.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4-Profits credited to fund


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I would like a clarification again from the minister with respect to clause 4 which has amendments to the CMHC Act, section 29(2). This is a housekeeping amendment that authorizes CMHC to set aside money to cover future losses. I take it those losses are with respect to any losses in the mortgage insurance fund. This is technical and clarifies that authority.
I am wondering if the minister would care to comment on the need for this additional authority and whether it will stop the government from raiding CMHC of the surplus in its mortgage insurance fund as it did this year to the tune of $55 million just before the end of the fiscal year in order to make its deficit books look a little better. The needs of the corporation are not as well served as they could be when it is requiring CMHC to set aside moneys to cover future losses. Having said that it turned around and raided CMHC of $55 million in surpluses.

Government Orders
I wonder if the minister might want to comment on how this is going to protect the government from grabbing CMHC's surplus funds in the future.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend opposite it is not the intention to prevent the government from grabbing funds.
The member knows, as do all members in the House, that our government is involved in a very serious exercise to try to reduce the deficit so we will have discretionary funding so that we will be able to respond to some of the requests that have been made, such as the one made for the RRAP program by his colleague opposite, the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.
It might not be a bad time to reflect upon the comments made by the treasurer of the province of Ontario, Mr. Laughren. When he was commenting on budgetary matters, I think it was on March 21, he indicated that he never wanted to see the government of his province put in a position such as the federal government found itself. To his credit he is resisting.
I think he indicated, as the member for Kingston and the Islands would know being a financial expert, that around maybe 14 or 15 cents of every dollar of the revenues of the province of Ontario are applied to paying the interest on past borrowings, which is only about half of what the federal government has to contend with.
When this money was appropriated from the fund which my colleague from London East talks about it was a considered act and it was done after careful consultation so that it would not interfere with the actuarial sums of the MIF. I can tell him that this other provision does not have any sinister background. As he indicated it is a housekeeping and expedient thing for the corporation to do.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 9-


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Chairman, with respect to clause 9 and the changes in the National Housing Act, subsection ll(l)(a), dealing with co-operatives, I want to ask the minister if the content of this amendment would remove the statutory requirements that CMHC review housing co-operatives' by-laws.
I know that this is just an administrative step but in the past co-operatives were supported by CMHC and the federal government. Unfortunately this government has not as of this year because it cancelled co-operative housing programs. That was a brutal blow to those people who were looking for a form of housing that had security of tenure, that was affordable and had a mixed income concept.
CMHC now wants to not review the by-laws of the co-operatives. It would seem to me that the government, and if not this government then future governments, and CMHC would want to ensure that by-laws could not be changed by co-operatives. By-laws that are passed can easily be changed in the future. If one wants to ensure that co-operatives are functioning as they should and are protecting public investments then those by-laws should be reviewed on an ongoing basis by CMHC.
I am wondering whether the minister would comment as to why this clause is being put in.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am informed that Canada Mortgage and Housing will continue to review these by-laws. It is put in for flexibility to eliminate the practice of more or less making it mandatory. Provincial legislation has a role to play here.
Despite any misgivings my colleague has about the lack of supervision or lack of interest he does not have to be concerned. We are still going to be looking at the by-laws and provincial legislation also has a role.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: I am not entirely satisfied. CMHC may want flexibility but it has that flexibility now. It is clear that clause 9 essentially will be that the rule will not be that they will review the by-laws.
I would like to deal with co-operatives because the by-laws of the co-operatives may very well relate to the indexed link mortgage. That has been the model for the past five years in the delivering of co-operatives.
June 15, 1992

The co-operatives have been killed. The ILM, indexed link mortgage, is a popular financing mechanism for co-operatives. While the federally subsidized co-operatives unfortunately might be finished in this country there are opportunities for co-operatives and other social housing groups to look at ILMs as a feasible mechanism.
I understand that even the Canadian Bankers' Association supports the ILMs. I am wondering if the minister would care to comment because in one of those by-laws the ILM may very well be mentioned. I am wondering whether that review of those by-laws is not absolutely necessary for CMHC to ensure that co-operatives are functioning within the mandate of the federal government's policy with respect to social housing and market housing.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I think there maybe a valid distinction to be made with respect to the charter and the by-laws. In any event, my colleague mentions the ILM mortgage. We are still involved, as he probably knows, in discussions with officials in the omnipotent Department of Finance. There may well be a light at the end of the tunnel or there might even be a tunnel at the end of the light.
I can assure the House and my colleague from London East that this is an ongoing issue. We are looking very closely at the future of ILM mortgages.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 17-


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Chairman, clause 17 deals with this new amendment to the National Housing Act, section 15.1, that will essentially authorize CMHC to make loans, just like the approved lender loans for housing where CMHC will be providing financial assistance to setting operating agreements. This is a relatively new authorization that will allow CMHC to directly finance social housing and similar projects.
I would like to know what the criteria will be for writing those loans directly. As the minister knows, there are present agreements that will in fact come due. There are federal-provincial agreements that are in place now. How and when will CMHC directly intervene in financing that specific social housing program?
There are a number of groups, namely the Canadian Housing Renewal Association, and even co-operative groups, the Co-operative Housing Federation, as well as some municipalities that have some questions as to
Government Orders
whether and when CMHC will decide to directly finance those projects.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Just scanning this I think that clause 17 to which my colleague refers is really concerned with the title. Clause 18 is the clause that has the substance in it. Insofar as the criteria are concerned it is as he would expect. It is where we can expect to get the proper financial backing. Of course we must go by reputation. It is not going to affect to any extent the existing arrangements that are made with financial institutions with which we have been used to doing business.
I cannot give him an exhaustive or even an exact definition of all the criteria. However, the reputations and capacity of the designated lenders with which we will be dealing are something that will be looked at veiy carefully.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I do apologize. Clause 17 is the title so I will make my comments with respect to clauses 17 and 18.
How will that criteria be established? Will it be done by regulation? Will it be done by CMHC directly?
While I am at it, one of the benefits that CMHC has indicated will accrue because of direct financing is that the government may save some $150 million over five years.
I am wondering whether CMHC intends to use those funds for the purposes of rehabilitating the public housing programs the minister, my colleague, the member for Don Valley East and I spoke about, which are in need of serious repairs. Is the $150 million going to be a dividend that is going to be paid to the government or will an additional mandate be given to CMHC in order to regenerate those funds for more useful purposes in terms of providing more housing and making sure those public housing units that CMHC now manages are maintained to the standards to which everybody else has to maintain them?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: We would hope that at least a portion of the savings that we are reasonably confident about can be achieved by this direct method of financing, which is another option as well as the delegation to direct lending, which I think my colleague would agree might save us as much as 50 basis points under some circumstances. We would be able to take some of those funds and use them, as he and other members have suggested, to refurbish existing public housing. That is a very good suggestion and one we hope to explore and to carry out.

Government Orders
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 22-


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Chairman, clause 22 deals with the National Housing Act, section 19. While it is a housekeeping and incidental matter, it does repeal the mortgage and loan purchase fund. One could make the case that discontinued funds really have no substantive role any more because a central borrowing authority is being created in order to give CMHC flexibility.
Could the minister provide us with an outline as to why they are removing flexibility presently in the National Housing Act such as the mortgage and loan purchase fund which may be required or may be a useful tool in the future?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It is my understanding that this has already been repealed in a sense in that the effect of this legislation sets out CMHC's programs. We have taken out of the NHA basically all of the borrowing and investment authorities. Should this bill be adopted by the House, we will have one large borrowing and investment authority in the CMHC act. A lot of the other provisions, while they have served a useful purpose in the past, will in effect be obsolete in light of the new flexibility and the central borrowing authority we will have.
I can understand his observations. However, that in effect is the general purpose of what the bill hopes to accomplish.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
On Clause 24-Agents


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Chairman, clause 24 is a new one and it deals with the approved lenders and indicates that CMHC may authorize approved lenders, municipalities and provinces to process loan insurance on behalf of CMHC.
I have no difficulty with that. Part of the main purpose for this bill is to have formations deliver the mortgage insurance program other than CMHC and therefore
expedite the processing of applications and perhaps even save money.
I was rather curious in terms of the words municipalities and provinces. I wonder if the minister would care to give me an example of why or where a municipality or a province may want to process the loan insurance program itself when usually it would be a bank. As I understand it the banks are providing the mortgage insurance now, primarily the commercial banks. CMHC underwrites the risk to bring that level from 75 per cent up to 95 per cent of the mortgage now. I wonder why the words municipalities and provinces are mentioned. Is that in any way related to the constitutional discussions that are going on and therefore will allow CMHC to directly deal with municipalities and provinces?
I am rather curious to know if the minister might take a little bit of time to explain my concern with an explanation as to why municipalities and provinces are named and whether it really does have anything to do with the constitutional discussions that are going on.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: can assure my colleague that it has nothing to do with the constitutional discussions. There may be times under a federal-provincial agreement when this would be a useful provision. There is really nothing more to it than that. It is enabling in effect and it is there to be utilized if needed.
I want to repeat again that this has no application to the best of my knowledge to any of the provisions that are being negotiated at this time with respect to the Constitution as it may relate to housing.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: That answer is not good enough. Would I then understand that if I moved an amendment to strike municipalities and provinces the minister would not have any objections to that and neither would CMHC? I would like the member to give me an example of when municipalities have asked for the authority or provinces have asked for the authority to deliver mortgage loan insurance. For the most part CMHC is doing it now. It wants to essentially let the mortgage lenders do it because they are underwriting most of the risk and providing most of the money. I would like to know if that means that municipalities will be able to lend money for
June 15, 1992

the purposes of housing or whether provinces will be able to do so. I am not getting the right answer and unless I get a good answer I am prepared to move to strike the words municipalities and provinces unless I am quite convinced there is a good reason to have these two formations in place.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Basically it is just part of the business process. There is nothing there, as I say, that is intended to be irregular. It is just a case that part of the process of ensuring and obtaining finance may be utilized under certain circumstances by the provinces or municipalities. It is something that gives the act more flexibility and gives Canada Mortgage and Housing more options in dealing with these entities. That is all.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the minister would acknowledge to this Committee of the Whole that while this constitutional debate is going on in this country with respect to governments in housing, average Canadians are sometimes fed up with governments fighting turf wars over whose responsibility it is. They want problems in this country solved and housing is one of them.
The minister had discussions with big city mayors and with the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. The one thing that is clear is that when it comes to housing they believe that CMHC is absolutely essential to ensuring that we do have a national housing program, a national housing equity across this country. They are nervous about what potentially may occur to this great Crown corporation that represents Canadians from across the country, from Vancouver right to St. John's, Newfoundland. It does provide the security that people will be treated equally across this country.
I would like to understand and know whether it would be possible for municipalities and provinces to process loan insurance as per this new clause that has been introduced. I am rather suspicious that it has much more to do with flexibility in terms of potential constitutional results than it has to do with the delivery of the mortgage insurance process.
I wonder if the minister could try to convince me and perhaps others that in fact inserting those two words, municipalities and provinces, does not take away at some
Government Orders
point in time the glue of CMHC in terms of its national obligations.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I am not getting my point across adequately but the provinces are in effect doing this now. They are underwriting it now. This will make the process more visible. Canada Mortgage and Housing still has the ability to approve it in the final instance. This just allows them to be more flexible in doing what they are already doing and have been doing for some time.
Again I want to assure my colleagues that it has nothing to do with any constitutional negotiations.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I know that the minister has CMHC officials near him. Could he give me an example of a few provinces or municipalities that are now delivering such a program so that for the record we could have it and I could be assured that that is exactly the past, present, and perhaps future precedent?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Again, Mr. Chairman, I stand to be corrected, but I think all of the provinces-the member asked for a specific province-are doing it at the present time.
What this does is allow them slightly more power to commit Canada Mortgage and Housing to do this but it is not a giant step or anything like that. It just improves and enhances what has been going on. They are doing it.


Alan Redway: Mr. Chairman, as I read this clause, it indicates that the corporation may authorize any approved lender, municipality, province, or agency of a province to act as agent for the corporation in insuring loans. It goes on to say that in the case of an approved lender, insuring the loans that are made by the approved lender.
I take it in the case of the provinces and municipalities we are talking here of merely insuring loans that are made by CMHC. Is that the case? It is not insuring loans made by themselves.
Does it mean that we are in effect by this clause authorizing the municipalities and the provinces to go into the mortgage insurance business and to provide mortgage insurance themselves from a mortgage insurance fund of their own?

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
If it does not mean that, I would have to again ask the question that my friend across the way has asked, what specifically does it mean?
If there is now a province or municipality that is either lending money for mortgages or insuring mortgage loans I would like to know which ones they are.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, the provinces under this provision would be acting as an agent for Canada Mortgage and Housing.
They have been acting, but not in the sense that they can do so independently. This gives them greater scope but it does not allow them to lend money, as my colleague suggests, but simply to act as an agent of Canada Mortgage and Housing.


Alan Redway: Mr. Chairman, I take it then that this provision just delegates the authority to approve all the insurance provisions that CMHC has to the provincial government or municipal governments, as the case may be, that it only concerns the paperwork and the mortgage insurance fund stays with CMHC.
I take it this would only be for social housing or assisted housing projects and not to provide for a private market home ownership kind of mortgage loans insurance. Is that right?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, my distinguished colleague has stated the situation as I understand it. That is correct.
Clause 24 agreed to.
On clause 25-Aggregate maximum


Ross Harvey: Mr. Chairman, being somewhat fearful of rushing in where prudent angels may fear to tread I would nonetheless ask the minister about clause 25 and its new section 21 and clause 28 and its renewed section 21.5. What is meant by the phrase "the aggregate outstanding amount", or in the case of clause 28 and section 21.5, "the aggregate outstanding principal amount"?
Does that mean at any given time the total of the original principal amounts issued or is there a running total based on the aggregate of the paid down principals at any given time?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, it is the aggregate. It is up to $100 billion.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Chairman, to take a simplified example let us say I have a mortgage with an original principal of $100,000 and after five years I paid that principal down to $99,000.
For the purpose of the aggregate set out in the bill would the aggregate include the $100,000 figure until such time as the loan is completely paid off or would it, after five years, be the $99,000 figure and so on as it is paid down?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, would my colleague run his question by me one more time?


Ross Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to find out what precisely is meant by the phrases the "aggregate outstanding amount" and the "aggregate outstanding principal".
In a fevered attempt to explain this question let us again assume that the entire portfolio consisted of an initial principal of $100,000 and that after five years, because of payments on that principal, that amount had been reduced to $80,000.
For the purpose of these sections of the act would the aggregate outstanding amount still be the original $100,000 after five years or would it have become the $80,000 that in fact was the outstanding principal at that time? Which would be the total for the purposes of the act?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, it would be $80,000, it would be the lesser figure.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 35 inclusive agreed to
On Clause 36-


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Chairman, my comments would be on clauses 36, 37 and 38 as they relate to changes to the National Housing Act, sections 51(2)(b), 52 and 54. It talks about rehabilitation. My question relates very much to RRAP and ERP. In fact it calls for a maximum for loans forgiveness and contributions to be set by the Governor in Council rather than by regulations.
I know this is a simplified procedure, but I get rather nervous with respect to Order in Council as opposed to doing it by regulation because the regulations are transparent and up front. Everyone knows exactly what the rules of the game are as opposed to Orders in Council which are subject to a number of potentially different factors. I am wondering whether or not the minister might want to explain this.
June 15, 1992


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The member makes a good point with his observations on the merits of Orders in Council and regulations as he has stated, but the intent here is simply to let us respond more quickly to the needs of RRAP customers as it were. We are looking at ways of perhaps enhancing or improving the delivery and some of the limits on RRAP. We thought that by doing it this way we could do it more quickly and be more responsive. That is the only reason for it.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 40 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 41-


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Chairman, if you want to call clauses 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45,1 do not have any problem with doing that because all of these essentially have to do with repealing separate borrowing authorities for several programs and in fact changing them to that central borrowing authority for flexibility.
Let me ask again with respect to indexed linked mortgages whether or not we can get a commitment from the minister that this financial mechanism, which has proven its weight in gold with respect to co-operatives, has the support of CMHC, Canadian bankers, the co-operatives and even groups that may use it in home ownership, and would not take away the ability of CMHC or the government to continue to use them for other uses.
Can the minister tell me whether or not in any of clauses 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 separate borrowing authorities may have been required? I know ILMs are now something in the neighbourhood of about $180 million. I mean CMHC has been promoting pension funds. Will the passage of these clauses kill the ILMs?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, my initial reaction from listening to my colleague was that it would not. I have checked with my officials and I am told that indeed that is the case. It will not affect it whatsoever.
I might say to him that I share his positive feelings toward the ILM as an instrument, but unfortunately I
Government Orders
cannot give him any commitment tonight that this will be quickly utilized. I am an advocate for it and I know he is, so we will continue our discussions with the Department of Finance.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 to 45 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 46-


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Chairman, with respect to clause 46, it introduces changes to section 95(1) of the National Housing Act. It relates to housing expense contributions. I take it that this is authorizing CMHC to make contributions to landlords to reduce rentals including where CMHC is the landlord.
I understand that this broadens the class of eligible contribution recipients. Can the minister tell us how that is being monitored? Is it by virtue of agreements with specific landlords?
I want to know what safeguards are in place to ensure that when CMHC is making contributions to landlords to reduce rents, hopefully with the view of providing affordable rents, they are living up to those agreements and they can be revoked at any time those landlords are not fulfilling their obligations.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I can assure my colleague that these will be monitored. As he knows, this provision and the necessity for it were perhaps best illustrated when we had to use a device in order to deal with the province of Prince Edward Island which had no shared cost housing in the conventional sense. This is one reason for that particular clause.
I take his admonition on the other. We will be monitoring it to make sure there is no abuse.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
On clause 48-Condition re sale, etc.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I note in reading this proposed new section, section 97.1, which briefly provides that the corporation may require any person who is to benefit from a loan of the corporation at a lower interest rate or a contribution from the

June 15, 1992
Government Orders
corporation or a forgiveness of any amount by the corporation, to provide the corporation with an undertaking that basically would, in the event of the person failing to comply with any of the requirements associated with the benefit, compel that person to pay back the benefit in whole or in part to the corporation.
For the purpose of this section clearly the definition of person is very important. I understand as regards housing co-ops, for example, the co-op is itself a corporate person and as regards a non-profit housing society, for example, that society is a corporate person. There is no problem there.
What I am wondering is whether or not it may be possible to further back that up either by the co-op or the housing society, in the instance of the co-op backing it up to its individual members or in the instance of the society backing it up to its individual board or even individual residents. Is that contemplated in this proposed section?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: think the best way to answer that initially is to say that the intention, as I understand it, is at the project level. I do not think it is intended to go back to the individual members. It is at the level of the project itself.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I had assumed that was the case. What troubles me somewhat is I see nothing here that precludes the individual project operator, be it the corporate person of the co-op or of the board or of the society, from backing that further to the membership on the one hand and the residents or board on the other.
I was just wondering if the minister could identify something in the new section or elsewhere in the act that would prevent that further backing of that responsibility in this instance.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am not sure I can fully answer my colleague without conferring with my officials, but I think it is a question of interpretation.
I think it is fairly clear that it was intended to operate at the project level and it would not be applied in an unreasonable or shall we say a Draconian way. If he wishes to give me a moment or two, I will try to elaborate a little more.


Ross Harvey: I would be willing to let the matter hang.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I would appreciate it. I do not want to give a misleading answer.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: We have heard the horror stories of where in fact this has occurred. We obviously want to stop it.
Can the minister say whether or not this will give the authority to CMHC to rewrite some of these old agreements and perhaps even look at the principle of retroactivity to ensure these loopholes are closed and closed quickly so that in fact nothing like this can occur again as has happened in the past.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: On the question of retroactivity I think the answer is definitely no. Again, I am sorry I cannot be more specific on some of the nuances here, but there would be no retroactivity involved.
Clause 48 agreed to.
On Clause 49-


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Chairman, this appears to be a very positive move on the part of CMHC in order to start charging fees for its services.
I am just wondering whether or not these fees are going to be charged to social housing groups or municipalities? Where is the criteria? I know you talk about training and non-profit but some of these fees now that are offered by CMHC to groups are in effect done now gratis, free of charge, as part of the partnership that exists between CMHC, the provinces, the non-profit groups or what have you.
I agree that sometimes the fee for services is a good idea but I would like to know who is going to be charged and when will they be charged because it is just a blank and wide-open clause. I would like some more specificity with respect to those fees for services.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It is really basically an enabling provision. As the explanatory note in the bill as my colleague no doubt knows states, it is enabling to supply housing-related property management and development services to federal government departments and agencies. That is the main purpose of it. We are not going to impinge on what public works does, for example, but to the extent it relates to housing expertise it would enable us to deal with a situation like Summerside where there was a need for our services.

June 15, 1992
It allows CMHC to supply services to support federal-provincial housing arrangements in a cost-effective manner, so it gets us into that area as well. It makes it clear that Canada Mortgage and Housing may charge fees for these services.
I cannot see us, to use the vernacular, soaking nonprofit housing groups or co-ops, but there may be certain services that we have that we could assist them with for a modest charge.
I will check with my officials here but I do not think there is any schedule of fees or any plans have been made. It is an enabling provision.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clauses 50 to 52 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 53-Coming into force


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: On a technical point. I know that clause 53(2) makes revised CMHC income tax status effective January 1, 1991. That was one and a half years ago.
I know that clause 53(3) talks about ceilings on the insurance and the MBS guarantees effective January 1, 1992. Is January 1, 1991 the date? It is about a year and one-half too late.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I will put it again in the vernacular if I may. That is the deal that has been made with finance, basically. That is the arrangement that has been made. It is part of the discussions.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Not to hold it up here but perhaps I would be interested to see in the financial figures why finance would have wanted it on January 1, 1991. Perhaps that information could be provided to the Senate when it is reviewing this bill as well.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That certainly could be arranged. My colleague at finance is very benevolent in this regard and I am sure he did it for our own best interests.
Clause 53 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
Adjournment Debate

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

John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate for a few minutes on a question which I asked the other day in respect of the government's proposed purchase of $4.3 billion "worth" of anti-submarine and search and rescue helicopters.
The government's proposal is to buy 35 EH-101 helicopters, which are basically British helicopters, for anti-submarine purposes, and 15 of the same helicopters to be equipped for search and rescue purposes. These are to replace the current Sea King helicopters that are used on board our ships for anti-submarine and other purposes, and the 12 land-based Labradors which are used for search and rescue.
We have heard now from the Associate Minister of National Defence and from the Prime Minister that no decision has yet been officially made. What we have seen is that the Department of National Defence has made a very clear and specific recommendation to proceed with these helicopters.
We have also had the privilege of reading correspondence from the chief of the air services, Lieutenant-General Huddleston, and the commanding officer of air transportation who have really not criticized the idea of modernizing the current fleet, but rather said they do not want to proceed with that until the proposed purchase of new helicopters has at least been tested on cabinet.
Cabinet has before it now the possibility of a decision on this helicopter proposal. In the House, the ministers responsible have ducked the question of whether they are actually going to recommend it. In fact, today the Associate Minister of National Defence said that no decision had yet been made, no recommendation had gone forward.
I would like to say on behalf of the people of Canada that the government has to not only look carefully at this proposal, but ought in the general interest decide now that this proposal should not be proceeded with.

June 15, 1992
Adjournment Debate
The proposal is obsolete in view of the changed world conditions and what we are hearing from authorities in the United States and other countries. First of all, with the end of the cold war, the end of the Warsaw pact and the dismantling of the Soviet Union itself, the Soviet submarine threat to North America has ended. If there is any sub threat to the western nations it is of a totally different order, and as a result of that the U.S. Congress has frozen a similar proposal from the U.S. navy. In fact, the U.S. navy has proceeded to modernize the Labradors, and because the Labradors are twin rotor, they are far safer working on search and rescue than would be the EH-101 helicopters that DND proposes we should be spending $52 million a crack for.
Our position is that, sure, the navy and the air force in Canada need helicopters, but for one-fifth the price they can end the proposal and can save the taxpayers billions of dollars. It is a responsibility the government should respond to.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know that there have been drastic changes in the over-all geostrategic situation. The conflict between east and west has thankfully receded, we hope permanently, into the pages of history.
That being said, all members are no doubt aware that there are unfortunately significant areas of instability throughout the world.
The April 1992 statement on defence policy makes it clear that Canada cannot isolate itself from the world. We must be concerned about threats to the larger community of nations with whom we live, work and trade.
Specifically that April statement notes, and I quote:
Military capability is in itself an essential element of national policy, even in peacetime. The government is responsible for the surveillance and control of areas under Canadian jurisdiction, be they on land, in the air or at sea, regardless of any immediate or apprehended activity by anybody else.
There is a limit to which a nation can relinquish its defence responsibilities and continue to remain an independent country. If Canada is to maintain the capability to carry out surveillance and control of our sovereign areas of responsibility as well as operate in supportive
collective security, then we must have the equipment and expertise for a general purpose capability.
The proposed new shipbome helicopters of which we have heard so much recently will, in fact, be used in multiple roles. The helicopters will possess a wide variety of capabilities, including anti-submarine warfare, anti-shipping surveillance, and of course search and rescue. TTiese helicopters will represent the main weapon system of the new Canadian patrol frigates and, as such, are essential to the full realization of the operational effectiveness of the new frigates.
I also want to add that these helicopters will contribute to the Department of National Defence support of other government departments in the roles of fisheries protection, drug interdiction, environmental monitoring, and protecting environmental resources.
Much has been made of alternative options to spending funds on the new shipbome helicopters, including modernizing the existing CH-113 Labrador fleet. Does the hon. member really want the brave men and women of the Canadian forces eventually to be flying 70-year old helicopters because these ships are to be used to the year 2035.


FRENCH COLLEGES
Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, on May 4, I asked the Secretary of State why the matter of a French college in northern Ontario was dragging on so long. The Bourbeau report, which unequivocally recommended building a French college in northern Ontario, was published two years ago. The issue has moved forward very slowly. People were and still are tired of being told again and again that something is coming soon.
First of all, I would like to make my colleagues in the House aware that such a college is essential.
At present, it is sad to see young people move out, exiled as it were, to southern Ontario. The attraction of the big city and the possibility of completing their education in their mother tongue are the main reasons for this unfortunate migration. There is no doubt that northern Ontario loses a little of its future every time a student decides to stay in the big city. Of course, the ideal solution is to have a French college in our region as soon as possible.
June 15, 1992

It is estimated that about 22,000 people have left the north in the past 15 years. Most of them are retirees and young people. The time is therefore right to found a new academic institution which would put great emphasis on the quality of written and spoken French. The illiteracy rate among francophones is thought to be 40 per cent. This situation is urgent, even though a sustained effort should be made at the primary and secondary levels starting now.
Nevertheless, in a national perspective that would ideally seek to create a climate of acceptance for linguistic minorities, such an initiative should be supported. Section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Francophones outside Quebec the right to education in French at the primary and secondary levels, where numbers warrant. In my humble opinion, these rights could be extended to the post-secondary level and it could be left to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide if such an extension were challenged.
From a practical point of view, students and parents would save tremendously on transportation costs; depending on where the college was located, the costs of room and board would be substantially less for those who would stay with their parents. Establishing such an institution in the north would also provide very significant economic benefits.
In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to remind the government that the province of Ontario announced on the weekend that it was approving the creation of two colleges, one in the north and the other in the south. This is subject to a contribution from the federal government, which I think is urgent.
Might the government be waiting for the right moment to make it an election promise? I hope not, because one should not play games like that with people's futures.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, since at least 1989 it has been a priority of this govem-
Adjoumment Debate
ment to do whatever it can to help the government of Ontario meet the legitimate demand of franco-Ontarian communities for the creation of a viable network of French language community colleges.
Of course in becoming involved in a project such as this we always have to keep in mind that education is in the area of provincial jurisdiction.
Nevertheless it is our conviction that the federal government has a duty to co-operate with the provinces to help ensure the highest possible standards of services to our official language minority communities throughout Canada, when the provinces indicate to us that they want our help and co-operation in this field.
In the case of Ontario, we are dealing here with a project of three separate colleges, one in northern Ontario, one in southern Ontario and one in the eastern part of the province.
The third project, La Cite collegiale has already been completed and is now receiving students right here in Ottawa-Carleton. It has proved a resounding success with an enrolment of almost 50 per cent of the number originally forecast.
It is in fact the tangible result of the agreement signed in 1990 between the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada. That accord covered a seven-year period and an involvement of federal contributions of $50 million. Tb date, the government has paid out $19.5 million to the province as its share of expenses.
Negotiations with Ontario are proceeding for the creation of two other colleges and have been going on for the past several months. During that time the Secretary of State has had regular meetings with the provincial Minister of Colleges and Universities, the hon. Richard Allen.
There are of course problems to solve in terms of cost, definition of perceived location and institutions involved but discussions have been going on well and real progress is being made. We are confident that the agreement can be reached very soon.

June 15, 1992
Adjournment Debate PETROLEUM INDUSTRY


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, let me try to bring my hon. friend opposite back to duties closer to those he has as parliamentary secretary.
On March 25, the government announced the removal of the last vestiges of significant limitations on foreign investment in the Canadian petroleum industry. This move will create no new investment in our price-depressed oil patch. As analyst Ian Doig was quoted as saying in a March 21 Globe and Mail article: "Why would you invest in an industry that has had a rate of return of less than 5 per cent in the last two or three years?"
This universal abandonment of restrictions on American control in the Canadian oil patch will, however, effectively treat the symptoms of the ills facing Canada's strategic energy industry with a further dose of the disease. Disease it is, for while Canadian control builds Canada, foreign control bleeds Canada.
Between 1980 or 1981 and 1990, Canadian petroleum companies generated a modest $1.5 billion net flow of capital into Canada. By contrast, foreign-controlled companies extracted over $25 billion from Canada including nearly $8 billion in dividends alone.
In the same period, Canadian-controlled companies reinvested 94 per cent of their cash flow. Foreign-controlled companies reinvested much less, just 77 per cent.
If that were not enough, the Conservatives caved in on this issue right smack in the middle of negotiations on the North American free trade agreement. The government effectively stepped away from the bargaining table for an instant, and there, in the same room utterly without strings attached, in full view of the Mexican and American negotiators threw one of Canada's best bargaining chips out the window.
The energy minister denies that his government's action was a result of pressure from the United States government. Maybe, but note that for at least the last four years the annual "National Tirade Estimate Report on Foreign Tirade Barriers" issued by the office of the U.S. trade representative in Washington, D.C. has contained specific reference to Canada's foreign ownership restrictions in energy.
In any event, it seems virtually certain that this relaxation of our limits to American investment in Canada's energy sector, a move taken right during the NAFTA negotiations, increased the pressure on Mexico to do the same.
As a result, this will have the effect, at a stroke, of significantly increasing the likelihood that large volumes of Mexican natural gas-so far starved for investment capital-will come on stream in less than a decade. It will thereby compete directly with Alberta gas, holding down its already pitifully low price. Some strategy.
I ask the government again: Does it have any estimate of how much more capital foreign-controlled companies will bleed from Canada as a result of this retreat, this capitulation, this abandonment of the Canadian national interest in Canada's national energy industry?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the question by my hon. friend from Edmonton East regarding the potential level of foreign investment that might result from the announced changes to the foreign investment regime in the oil and gas industry in Canada.
The member knows the oil and gas industry has been performing poorly. Compared to other sectors of the Canadian economy, profit levels have been low and the level of capital investment has been insufficient to prevent a decline in employment. Since 1989 it has been estimated that the oil and gas industry has lost 9,000 jobs in western Canada.
Foreign ownership rules are only one of many factors influencing the level of foreign investment in the oil and gas industry. Other factors affecting the financial performance of the industry such as the price of oil, finding costs and the prospects for growth in the industry are very important.
Because so many factors are involved it is next to impossible to predict the level of new foreign investment in the industry in the long run. However, the executive director of the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada has estimated that the changes should stimulate increased investment within the year which may lead to increased annual investment flows in the range of $300 million to $400 million.
June 15, 1992

The honourable member quotes figures in an attempt to show that foreign ownership of the oil and gas industry has led to excessive repatriation of funds. The truth is that the outflow of funds during the period 1980 to 1989 was primarily due to the increased levels of Canadian ownership of the industry through takeover activity. Further, the $8 billion in dividends paid to foreigners over the past 10 years is not out of line compared with the $50 billion of investment and the roughly $60 billion of cash flow their investment dollars have generated.
The elimination of the Canadianization policy has allowed Canadian and foreign oil and gas companies to
Adjournment Debate
rationalize their operations and improve their competitiveness in global markets. This will contribute to a stronger industry with increased investment opportunities to improve future prospects for prosperity for all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 10.22 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1), the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.