1993-05-06

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-101, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, with amendments, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton - Strathcona) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-433, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breach of condition of parole or statutory release).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill regarding breach of parole.
This bill would amend the Criminal Code to make breach of either parole or statutory release conditions a criminal offence. I believe this amendment could have prevented the murders of Kittye Schmidt and Ezio Faraone.
Schmidt and Faraone were both murdered by parolees who had breached parole conditions. Currently parole officers can issue a warrant for the arrest of parolees who breach conditions.
However as parole officers have limited contact with parolees police officers who patrol the streets are more likely to witness a breach of parole conditions. Currently police officers are unable to arrest a parolee who is breaching non-criminal parole conditions.
This change would go a long way to help protect Canadian people. There is a loophole in the law and this would plug it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Thorkelson moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of several hundred people all over Labrador, where the first Inuk in the history of the legislature of Newfoundland was elected in the person of William Andersen III. I want to offer him my congratulations, and those of the House.
This petition calls upon the government to reverse its decision to cut funding for friendship centres. These have been very important to aboriginal people in Labrador. The funds have been cut and this petition calls upon the government to renew that funding.

May 6, 1993
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, in the first petition, the petitioners request Parliament to ensure that the CRTC carefully regulates the use of foul language and violence in radio and television programming.
They point out that violence is not only acts of violence but can also be language. They feel that neither is necessary to inform or to entertain. They also believe that there is too much violence in society today.
This violence undermines their efforts to bring up their children.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, in the second petition these petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to remove the hated goods and services tax on books and other reading materials. They point out that it has adversely affected the publishing industry and the creators of these works, such as artists, writers, publishers and what have you.
They also indicate that it runs contrary to government goals of increased productivity and more effectiveness. They point out that reading is essential. It is a cornerstone of a democratic country such as Canada.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present petitions signed by several hundred people from British Columbia asking the federal government to do everything in its power to stop the drift-net fishing in the north Pacific Ocean. They say that we are courting an ecological disaster by allowing drift-net fishing fleets in the north Pacific Ocean and that sea birds and marine mammals are being slaughtered by this practice.
Since the west coast salmon fishery is being damaged and there is a massive impact on our global ecosystem they ask that this Parliament use every means possible to stop the drift-net fishing in the north Pacific, including
the institution of economic sanctions against the offending countries.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, my second petition is signed by over 400 people who say that the result of violence in entertainment and desensitization to violence in our society is that we are increasingly becoming a culture of violence and violence has become an ordinary part of our children's lives. They say that part of this culture of violence is exemplified by the serial killer board game which portrays torture, rape and murder as fun.
They call on Parliament to consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading materials such as these serial killer board games can be kept out of distribution in Canada.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, if question No. 274 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. 274 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Riis: Since January 1, 1989, has the government printed any material in connection with overseas trips by members of the cabinet other than the Prime Minister, and if so, (a) for which ministers (b) for which trips (c) what material was printed (d) in what quantities (e) at what cost?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
May 6, 1993



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved: that Bill C-126, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to lead off the debate in the House on Bill C-126, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act.
This bill is part of a series of measures introduced by the government to protect all members of our society. Its purpose is to reinforce the provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with family violence, child abuse and violence against women in general. The bill will increase protection for victims in general, and more specifically for victims of family violence and for children who are victims of abuse. It will also facilitate admissibility of testimony from children who were abused or who witnessed violence done to others.
I am sure most members will agree that family violence, child abuse and violence against women are among the most pressing and difficult social problems Canada faces today. No child is safe from sexual abuse. Family violence and sexual abuse of children occur at all levels of our society, irrespective of class or income.
The disturbing fact is that victims of family violence and sexual abuse may never come to terms with what happened to them. The physical effects may disappear but the psychological damage remains. These victims may never again be able to trust others as readily as they did before. They may feel insecure for the rest of their lives. The victim is not the only loser. Society is deprived of what would otherwise have been the promising future of this victim as a productive member of the community.
That is why society must take appropriate steps to provide protection against family violence, child sexual abuse and violence against women in general.
Government Orders
Sexual abuse of children and violence against women occur in a situation where the scales are weighted in favour of the aggressor and against the victim. Children are sexually abused by persons who are older and physically stronger than they are. Women are abused and assaulted by men who are both physically and economically stronger. Such acts constitute criminal abuse against individuals who are particularly vulnerable physically or, depending on the aggressor, economically or emotionally vulnerable. As a society we must condemn this kind of behaviour.
The purpose of Bill C-126 is to add to or amend a number of provisions in the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code alone is not enough to protect all potential victims against these crimes. The bill is not intended as the last word in penal reform in this area. More work must be done on crime prevention. In any case, Bill C-126 is, as I see it, a major step in the right direction.

Bill C-126 will introduce a new criminal harassment section to the Criminal Code. The new section is called criminal harassment because we believe this best describes the nature of the crime although the acts are more commonly known as stalking.
More and more cases are being reported of women being stalked by men they used to be involved with and from whom they may be trying to escape.
There have been several cases in Canada recently in which women have been stalked and seriously injured or killed. These cases made it clear that a new provision in the Criminal Code was urgently needed to explicitly criminalize these types of acts.
A recent public opinion survey shows that more than eight in ten Canadians would support a law that would prohibit the persistent harassment and intimidation of another person.
What is commonly called stalking includes such things as repeatedly following someone; spending extended periods of time watching someone's home or place of work; making repeated telephone calls to someone or her friends; making contact with someone's neighbours or co-workers; and contacting and possibly threatening someone's new companion, spouse or children. Any or all of these actions result in the causing of fear for safety.

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
To a certain extent several sections in the Criminal Code already cover the behaviour involved in these cases. These current provisions have been criticized by victims and various groups for several reasons, such as difficulty of proof and inadequacy of coverage. The offence proposed in the bill addresses these concerns.
The new criminal harassment provision would make it an offence for anyone with intent to harass, repeatedly follow or repetitively communicate with another person or anyone known to them, watch or beset where another person or anyone known to them lives or works, or engage in threatening conduct directed at another person or any members of their family if the behaviour causes the other person to reasonably fear for their safety.
I believe we have created a new offence that will capture the sort of behaviour that we, as a society, want to prevent without interfering unjustifiably with anyone's rights or freedoms as guaranteed under the charter.
Undoubtedly, people have the right to move about freely and to communicate freely. But no one has the right to deliberately harass another person in a way that causes the other person to fear for their safety. The bill makes a clear statement that this is a crime.

Groups and individuals involved in the struggle against family violence have pointed out that after an act of family violence at home, it is usually the victim and her children, not the aggressor, who leave the home. There is absolutely no reason that would justify the victim having to leave her home and definitely upset her life.
It has also been mentioned that after being released, men accused of mistreating their wives often return home and harass their victim or assault her again. Again, there is no reason for this to be so.
Bill C-126 seeks to solve these problems by amending the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning release on bail. The bill seeks to codify present practice by providing that the judge can order the accused, as a condition of his release, to refrain from going near a certain place and by requiring the judge, in cases involving physical violence, to consider the possibility of forbidding the accused to communicate with the witnesses, including the victim, or to go near a particular place, such as the family home, explicitly.
Experts say that there is no way to cure sex offenders who go after children and that the treatment given them is intended only to minimize the risks of relapse or repeat offences. Furthermore, the experts say that people who are sexually interested in children tend to occupy positions or have pastimes that give them access to children. The alarming result of this is that once those found guilty of a sexual offence are released, they take advantage of their freedom to prowl around parks in search of children or even to seek a position where they will enjoy the trust of children.
According to some clinicians, sex offenders should be banned for life from situations where they would be likely to commit a repeat offence. The general public has urged the government many times to forbid sex offenders to hold a position where they might have access to children.
To meet these requests, the bill contains a provision which would allow the court to forbid for the period of time it deems appropriate, including life if the judge thinks it necessary, those found guilty of a sexual offence to frequent parks or public bathing areas if children may be found there, child care centres, school yards, playgrounds, community centres and also to hold a job that would put them in a position of trust or authority over children. In any case, this provision would not be mandatory. It would be up to the court to determine if such a ban should be imposed and if so for how long. The court can also change the terms of the ban as the offender's situation develops, which leaves the court some freedom of action.
The bill also adds to the provision of the Criminal Code concerning the obligation to keep the peace. With this addition, someone could obtain a commitment to keep the peace if he or she feared that another person might commit a sexual offence against a child.
Under the new provision, whoever fears that another person might commit a sexual offence against a child under 14 can file a denunciation with a provincial court judge. If the judge is convinced that the denouncer's fears are founded he can order the person named in the denunciation to comply with conditions set by the judge. These conditions include forbidding, for a period of up to 12 months, the person named in the denunciation to
May 6, 1993

engage in activities involving contacts with children under 14 or to be in public places if children might be there.
In this case, it is a preventive measure that could apply to persons never found guilty of a sexual offence, to persons found guilty of a sexual offence before the coming into force of the ban contained in the bill and to sex offenders who were found guilty but not subject to a ban or for whom the ban has expired in some cases.
As a rule, Canadian criminal law applies to criminal acts committed in Canada. Nevertheless, this respect for the recognized principles of international law must be counterbalanced by the sustained interest in child protection. Therefore Bill C-126 is a response to concerns about cases of children taken outside Canada for the commission of what would be an offence in Canada. The bill creates an offence which will not infringe on the sovereignty of other countries. The proposed clause forbids anyone to act for the purpose of taking abroad a child resident in Canada in order to a commit an act of violence or sexual exploitation on that child.
The abduction of children by the father or mother is another important issue. A recent appeal court decision brought to light a deficiency in the protection provided by the present provisions of the Criminal Code. Children are not protected from abduction in cases where the father or mother committing the abduction believes that the custody order is invalid. The bill is intended to correct this deficiency.
We were also concerned about the present provisions on abduction of children by the father or mother. This concern arises from the fact that a battered woman who decides to flee the violence against her, but not against her children, and who takes her children with her could be accused of child abduction. A battered woman should not have to choose between remaining at home or leaving home without her children, for fear of being accused of abduction. Furthermore, recent studies indicate that it is harmful for a child to witness family violence even if the child is not the victim of physical violence.
Government Orders
The bill deals with this problem by offering a defence in such circumstances. The new defence would apply if the father or mother fled for protection from imminent danger and not only to protect the child.
The bill would provide that husband and wife could be found guilty of conspiring with each other. Thus parents would no longer be safe from a conspiracy charge if, for example, they conspired to harm their child.

The bill also contains provisions that will assist child witnesses in testifying about violence or sexual abuse that they have suffered or witnessed.
In 1962 the Supreme Court of Canada decided that in every case in which a child testifies, the judge must warn the jury about the danger of accepting the uncorroborated evidence of a child even where the child testified under oath. The court said that this rule was necessary because of the mental immaturity of the child.
Since 1962 our knowledge of the capacity of children as witnesses has improved greatly. Research has clearly indicated there is nothing inherently fragile in a child's ability to observe and recollect or nothing inherently defective in a child's ability to testify. There is simply no reason to believe that children are automatically less reliable as witnesses than adults. There is therefore no rational reason to always treat children's evidence differently from that of adults.
In 1988 what was then Bill C-15 abrogated the Criminal Code section that required corroboration generally in sexual abuse cases. Nevertheless, because of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada judges have continued to give the warning in cases involving children.
To correct this situation Bill C-126 proposes to abrogate this route. This would remove the presumption against the evidence given by children. It is important to stress that this proposal would not create a presumption in favour of children's evidence. The judge or jury would evaluate and determine the weight of a child's evidence on an assessment of the child's evidence in the same way as they would an adult's.

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
It is undoubtedly true that testifying in court is an unpleasant and difficult experience for most adults. For children the experience of being a witness can be many times worse. Cases exist in Canada in which children have been so frightened in the witness box that they have been unable to speak or have been physically sick. This already disturbing situation is compounded for young victims of violence and sexual abuse. Indeed, one of the main fears expressed by child victims of sexual abuse is seeing the accused in the court room.
Parliament has already recognized this fact by enacting a provision which provides for the use of a screen or closed circuit television in the court room so the child can testify without seeing the accused. However a problem remains. A person accused, for example of sexual interference, could decide to exercise his right to represent himself. More specifically the accused could decide to represent himself when he is given the opportunity to cross-examine the child victim.
Child abuse occurs in part because of the inequalities between the child and adult in size, knowledge and power. I believe that cross-examination of a child victim by the accused in the adversarial system of criminal law results in a court-sanctioned continuation of that imbalance and abuse and therefore is wrong.
The bill responds to this problem by proposing to permit a judge to appoint counsel for the accused for the sole purpose of conducting the cross-examination of the victim. The accused would remain free to represent himself during the rest of the trial. The bill would prevent the accused revictimizing the child through a personally conducted cross-examination.
The trauma facing a child victim of violence or sexual abuse when he or she appears as a witness in court about what happened can be reduced in another way. The close presence of a person providing emotional support for the child may be critical in reducing the psychological harm occasioned by testifying in court proceedings and can give a young child the reassurance that is required for evidence to be given clearly and confidentially.
The bill proposes to specifically enable a judge to permit a support person of the child's choice to be present and close to the witness while the witness is testifying, even if the public has been excluded. The
proposed amendment would permit the judge to instruct the witness and the support person not to communicate while the child is testifying. In addition, the bill states clearly that the judge may refuse to permit a witness in the case to be a support person.
The bill also proposes changes that would improve that part of the Criminal Code which allows judges to exclude the public from the courtroom. In the bill, the public's right to be present in the courtroom and the interests of child witnesses are reconciled by adding the provision that proper administration of justice includes ensuring that the interests of witnesses under the age of 14 years are safeguarded in cases of violence or sexual abuse.
I elaborated quite a bit on this bill because I believe it will have a positive effect. As I said earlier, family violence and child abuse are complex social evils. Unfortunately, amendments to the Criminal Code will not eliminate them altogether.
However, I believe this bill demonstrates our commitment to guaranteeing the safety of Canadians and to protecting those who are particularly vulnerable. As a society, we must protect the most vulnerable individuals in that society and put an end to criminal abuse of power. These provisions will provide law enforcement agencies and the courts with more and better ways to protect women and children against violence and abuse.
We cannot allow the status quo to continue, where a woman's life may be destroyed by a stalker or a violent spouse.
We cannot allow the status quo to prevent us from doing everything in our power to protect one more child against the evils of sexual abuse. We know that many cases of family violence and child sexual abuse often occur in the family environment, an environment that is familiar and very close to the children. Given those circumstances, we must be careful how we intervene through the judiciary.
We intend to do more work on crime prevention in the months to come. We will develop a national strategy that, with the help of instruments included in the Criminal Code, should make it possible to provide for
May 6, 1993

immediate intervention in cases of violence and to further refine that strategy in the long term.
I hope that with the generous co-operation of members on both sides of the House we will be able to adopt this bill very quickly. That is why I am pleased to move adoption of Bill C-126 at the second reading stage.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the words of the hon. Minister of Justice. I thank him and his department for bringing this legislation forward. If there were something to do better I would suggest it is a little late; it should have come forward earlier.
I also congratulate the member for Moncton and the member for New Westminster-Burnaby for bringing forward their private members' bills. They were both very good private members' bills and have been on the Order Paper for quite some time.
On behalf of our party, we will certainly co-operate with the government and do everything we can to see that this bill receives swift passage. However we are not going to deny groups who want to comment before a legislative committee the opportunity to do so. We feel it is important that this bill go before a legislative committee so that we have the input. We can have all the discussion possible on a particular subject, but until it is in writing, until it is in a form to provide a common denominator for the people of Canada, these people are not going to be able to comment on the same subject exactly. We want to be talking about the same thing.
Now that we are talking about the same thing, it is vital that we have this legislation before a legislative committee. However on saying that I want to assure the Minister of Justice we are going to try to get this bill through a legislative committee as quickly as possible because we want this legislation. We want it with some amendments, but nevertheless we want it. We think it is basically a good piece of legislation and we want to see it dealt with.
I want to go over this bill because it is significant in that it is not just a stalking law. It is law that deals with many other things of interest. I want to talk about the bill
Government Orders
and make some comments on it. It is vital we fully understand the legislation and what it seeks to achieve.
First, the bill creates a new offence of criminal harassment which would prohibit anyone with the intent to harass from repeatedly communicating with or following another person or anyone known to that person. It would also include watching where a person or anyone known to them lives or works or engaging in threatening conduct directed at that person or any member of that family. It would increase the maximum penalty for this offence to five years in prison.
The fact of the matter is we are talking now about a new charge of criminal harassment which would take the place of the term we use of stalking, the reason being that we want to put it in legal language that can lead to convictions. Currently many of the activities usually associated with stalking are covered by the code. The problem has been that the burden of proof is very high and the victims of stalkers have traditionally had a difficult time convincing police they had reasonable grounds to fear for their safety. That has been a very serious handicap.
Women who have been stalked for years in many incidents have not been able to convince police and the judiciary they have been in fear of their lives. Women who have been stalked will say, and with every justification, that they have been through a tremendously horrendous experience. A woman who is stalked does not know if the stalker is going to appear before her in a supermarket, jump out in front of her from behind a tree, speak to her children on the way home from school, make phone calls at all hours of the day or night, send flowers and do everything that will throw the most absolute fear into the victim.
This is not only for a weekend. This is not only for a month. In many cases this is for years. The absolute terror and anxiety felt by the victim can only be imagined by someone who has undergone the actual stalking experience.
With respect to bail conditions, this legislation provides that as a condition of bail a judge may impose a condition that the accused not go near a particular place, the family home for instance. This improves upon section 515 of the Criminal Code in which the judge can only require the accused to stay in a particular place but not stay away from a place.

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
In situations of family violence where physical violence is involved, the judge must consider imposing the bail conditions that the accused not go near a particular place and that he not communicate with any witnesses, including the victim. Judges and the judiciary in this country have to be more sensitive to victims of stalking, and in this case to the charge of criminal harassment. They have to understand what is involved. In that regard I want the government and the provinces of this country to initiate judicial training on this subject to educate the judges on what is involved and on the mind-set of these stalkers and the thought processes and the thinking of the victims.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It has to be done or we are not going to get the full benefit of what the government is putting forward today.
There are other matters before the House today in respect to Bill C-126. I just want to go over them, if I may.
One provision is that the Criminal Code would be amended so that a husband and wife would be found guilty of conspiring with each other. Currently a husband and wife are taken to be one person and therefore not capable of conspiring together. This amendment is designed to offer more protection to children under the criminal law.
Currently children are not protected from abduction where there is a valid custody order that the abducting parent honestly believes to be invalid. It is a question of the reasonable belief of the abducting parent. This bill would change that.
It would also cover women who are being battered and who take their children with them when they flee. If the children are not being battered along with their mother then the mother could be charged with abduction under the present law for taking them with her. This amendment to the Criminal Code would allow for a defence in these circumstances. It is unreasonable, no matter how much a woman fears for her safety, that she would leave without her children. To think that woman was actually
abducting these children is stretching a point quite considerably.
The Criminal Code already states that anyone convicted of a sex offence and who is found loitering in or near a school, park, playground or swimming area, commits a summary conviction offence of vagrancy. Under this proposed legislation this section would be changed. This section under the Criminal Code as it stands now has been found unconstitutional by the B.C. Court of Appeal. Change is actually thrust upon us.
This unconstitutional finding by the B.C. Court of Appeal was on the grounds that a lifetime ban without recourse is unfair. This decision, I might add, is under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. There are many who, in addition to the finding of the B.C. Court of Appeal, also feel that the charge of loitering as it stands at the present time is really too vague.
Bill C-126 would allow for up to a lifetime ban on convicted sex offenders from frequenting day care centres, school grounds, playgrounds or community centres, public parks or bathing areas where children are likely to be found and from seeking or obtaining employment that involves a position of trust or authority over children. The court would have the discretion to tailor the prohibition to each individual, or in some cases where the court felt this was unwarranted to not impose the prohibition at all.
This legislation, as the Minister of Justice has also stated, deals with child witnesses, which is very important.
If we are talking about child abuse, we are talking about litigation and we are talking about parents before the courts. Therefore it is natural that these children be expected to testify.
It is a frightening experience for many adults to go to court. One can just imagine the trauma that children go through, particularly if these court appearances are delayed. Sometimes there is a long period of time between the time of the actual act of child abuse or whatever takes place and the time that the matter comes to court. Sometimes it can be a year and sometimes more.
May 6, 1993

The child is rethinking this horrible experience. This thought of the horrible experience which the child has endured is compounded by the fact that the child has to go before the court, face the person who did this in many cases and testify before a large number of people.
In many cases the child actually believes that he or she is going to be the one put in jail. They feel that they have committed a crime by allowing some adult or some young offender to sexually assault them. This is a tragic situation. Those young people, those young minds are hurt by this thinking of an abuse that was upon them but for which they take full blame. We have to deal with this. We have to set these children's minds at ease. We must have a good body of law and a good procedure before our courts. We have to do it with the interest of the child in mind. We have to. A child who is abused should not go through life carrying these mental scars.
We need to have rehabilitation for these children. We need counselling for these children. We also have to streamline and modify our court procedure so that these children go through a minimum amount of trauma and the cases are heard as early in the court docket as possible.
Currently judges tell juries that there is a danger in convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of a child. Bill C-126 would repeal this rule and a child's testimony would have the same weight as an adult's, which is a major step forward.
Where an accused represents himself in cases of child sexual assault the judge would now be allowed to appoint counsel for the accused to conduct the cross-examination of the child witness.
Bill C-126 would allow a judge to permit a friend or relative of the child's choice to be close to the child witness while testifying. This is designed to reduce the psychological trauma which these children usually suffer. The support person would be instructed not to communicate with the child while the child is testifying.
Currently a judge can exclude any and all spectators from a court room in the interest of the public morals or the proper administration of justice. Bill C-126 suggests a test be included in the code to strike a better balance between the right of the public to be present and the interest of the child.
Government Orders
These are important. We basically support what is in this legislation. There are some questions of course. Basically the thrust of what the government wants to do is proper and is a step forward. Nevertheless there are some concerns as I have said.
I want to rediscuss a situation in which the accused represents himself in cases of child sexual assault. Now the judge would be allowed to appoint counsel for the accused to conduct a cross-examination of the child witness. That is for a very good reason because the child could be five, six, nine or ten years of age. It could be a trauma for the child to have the person who actually committed the sexual abuse questioning the child, being up close to the child and questioning in a menacing fashion. We are saying if this is going to be problematic for the child witness then somebody else should be appointed.
Should we put some qualifying interests here because of the interests of the accused and on the basic principle of our law that a person is innocent until proven guilty? Should it be a counsel who comes in cold without knowing the case or without knowing the child, without having any feeling for the legal process of what is transpiring in this case and just ask the questions? How is this to be done? If the counsel does this, while it safeguards the child which is certainly what we want psychologically, is the accused jettisoning his or her fundamental right in the case before this court? Will the Supreme Court of Canada allow this if we do not modify it in some way?
These are concerns that I have and I think these are questions which need to be looked at before the legislative committee. I still think we can do this and get the bill back to the House and on to the Senate before the House adjourns.
There are other points that I want to make that are important. The requirement that a victim must reasonably fear for his or her safety could be problematic. Such a test is traditionally known as the reasonable man test. What is reasonable to cause a woman to be afraid? This may be much different from what is reasonable to cause a man fear. Police and judicial training will be critical if this problem is to be overcome. We used to talk about in law and still talk about the reasonable man test. We also

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
have to look at what is genuinely reasonable to cause fear to a woman who is being stalked.
A recent study funded by the Ontario Women's Directorate found that of the 551 women murdered in Ontario between 1974 and 1990, 78 per cent were killed by former spouses or companions who stalked them prior to their deaths. Anyone who says that stalking is a remote occurrence or a figment of some woman's imagination should memorize the statistic that of the 551 women murdered in Ontario between 1974 and 1990, 78 per cent were killed by former spouses or companions who stalked them prior to their deaths. Women's fears are well grounded. One of the challenges remaining is to convince the police, the Crown attorneys and the judiciary that this is the case.
I have a problem, as I mentioned at the outset, with the government's motivation for introducing this bill. With the House sitting for only five more weeks before recessing, we may be able to get this legislation. I hope we can. There is other legislation coming forward today on the Order Paper. There will be two more bills tomorrow and I suspect there will be a child pornography bill next week. There may be amendments to the Young Offenders Act. This is not allowing the time that we should have had to debate these questions. There is no reason in the world why these bills could not have been brought before the House earlier than has been the case.
Evidently the government wants to be able to take credit for introducing this legislation. If it was really serious about these issues it would have done something in the preceding months, not to mention the preceding almost nine years.
As I mentioned to the minister yesterday, the bill in regard to the amendments to the Human Rights Act is also something for which we have been waiting.
What is more important than this bill, even though we are talking about it, is that this bill is an intricate part of what we want to achieve for the safety of women and children. It is a very important part but what we need most of all are attitudinal changes within society.
I have mentioned the concern I have that the police, the Crown attorneys and the judiciary are not going to be sensitized to the fear that women have of being stalked,
of criminal harassment and of the fear and the actual prevalence of the abusive situations that exist for women and children in our society today.
Men particularly must condemn the mind-set which has allowed family violence. Women have been talking about it for years but because men have said: "Men could not do this sort of thing, I would not do this sort of thing," it has been sloughed off.
It is time to stop sloughing off these very real concerns. It is time for men to come forward and demand changes to the law with respect to violence against women and children, to demand and promote a change in the mind-set of people in this country.
As men we must do something. We have seen that women cannot do this alone and if they have to do it alone it is going to take much longer than should be the case. Everyone in Canada is concerned about the increase in crime and violence in our communities.
It has been said that the criminal harassment provisions in this bill may be used against legitimate strikers and protests. With all due respect to those who honestly feel this, and I know they honestly believe it, I am not as concerned about this as some people are.
Section 423 of the Criminal Code adequately looks after this concern. The member for New Westminster- Burnaby has mentioned this and it is a subjective weighing in one's mind whether one feels that this is a real problem or not.
She very rightly brought forward in discussions that some 30 states in the United States have anti-stalking legislation that actually provides for this possibility, that it could be used against strikers or those following through with their legal rights under labour legislation.
There have also been fears expressed that this legislation could be used against women who repeatedly call their ex-husbands for overdue support payments. To me this is a more valid concern. While the government argues that a man receiving such phone calls could not reasonably fear for his safety, the danger is that police will use this same argument against a woman who is receiving unsolicited gifts such as love letters and flowers, which are part of the stalking procedure, to let the woman know that the man is still there and is still obsessed with creating fear in the mind of this woman.
May 6, 1993

Other than extensive police and judicial training, it is going to be very difficult to address this concern legislatively. We must work, as I have said and want to repeat again, on the mind-set of society, in particular those who are charged with enforcing or will be enforcing, we hope, this legislation.
Perhaps some more serious consideration should be given to the suggestions of Quebec coroner Anne-Marie David who investigated two recent stalking-related deaths in that province. What she has suggested bears scrutiny and consideration by all Canadians. She stated: "Court houses and police stations should have information desks reserved for victims of conjugal violence so that they know their rights and can overcome insecurities about pressing criminal charges."
There should be somebody in each major police station in this country to whom a woman can go to press charges of criminal violence or her call can be directed. It should not be somebody who is overworked, who is completely insensitive to the concerns of violence against women and violence against children. It should be somebody who has received proper training. All police should have this training, but until this happens there should be, as Madam David has said, a particular desk, a particular place for these people to go to press charges.
Also, convictions and bail conditions in conjugal violence should be marked with a special code in the police computers to ensure swift action against recidivists. We must know who these people are. Women should be informed when their violent partner is being released from jail or on bail. Suspects ordered to turn over weapons should be accompanied from court by a police officer who seizes the weapons immediately. It should not be left to the individual on his or her honour to turn over the weapons. We should have someone go from the court room to seize these weapons.
Measures should be taken to see men removed from the family home in cases of conjugal violence. We in the Liberal Party have been suggesting this for some time. Why, when a woman is abused and/or her children are abused must she leave with the children, leaving the man in the home where she and the children have lived without any threat to the husband, from where the
Government Orders
children go to school and where the friends of the children are located? Why should this be?
One may say that the husband knows where his wife and children are and can come back and harass them or commit sexual or physical assault on them. If that is the concern of the wife then she has the option to leave. However if the wife wants to stay with the children, why can she not stay in the home with her children? Why can the police not be sensitized to know that this is her right and the right of the children? The abuser could be brought before the courts or a justice of the peace immediately or within hours to get a peace bond, and if that peace bond is violated, to have that violation of the peace bond brought before the courts, not weeks or months later, but hours.
Why can this not be done? Why can justices of the peace not be hired to do this? Why do women and children have to live in fear because our legal system is not prepared to give them the protection they deserve? Why is this happening? Why?
Quebec recently brought forward a public education program whereby women would be advised of the protection they could have if they were abused or felt threatened. So many women came forward for this protection and information that it completely jammed and overloaded the system so it became practically inoperative.
The need is out there. The example in Quebec has proven this. Why can we not do something? Why is the federal government not taking the lead in working with the provinces to address these questions? We need to address these questions.
We have to work with the provinces. I am tired of hearing that this cannot be done because it is a provincial responsibility. Why are women's lives being placed in jeopardy because we live in a country with a federal system of government? That is not good enough. More has to be done and done soon.
I also want to bring out one more point that Madam David made in her suggestions, which was that consideration be given to following the lead of London, Ontario in having a social worker accompany police to scenes of domestic violence. That is an excellent suggestion as well.

Government Orders
This legislation does quite a bit. It is a major step forward but there are a lot of pieces missing. We need to work on the attitudinal problem that exists, particularly with the judiciary, the Crown attorneys and the police. That has to be changed. Things have to be done faster.
We know that men who criminally harass women, who abuse women, who abuse children, are not going to stop. We cannot say that because we do not have the finances it is somebody else's jurisdiction. We cannot continue to say that this cannot be done. It has to be done. It has to be done soon. The longer we take, the more women are going to be murdered by husbands, former husbands, boyfriends, lovers and in many cases just men who have been infatuated with them over the years. Over the years they have undergone this trauma.
The provinces seem to be doing more. Some of what they are doing is impressive. With a concerted program initiated by the federal Department of Justice, by the Minister of Justice, a lot more can be done. I do not want to go over what has not been done in the past. I think I have said that.
That is not going to bring back any of the women who have been murdered. It is not going to repair the physical and psychological damage to women who have been sexually assaulted and who have been beaten by their husbands or other men. It is not going to erase the trauma from children's minds which they will be carrying around perhaps for the rest of their lives. By doing something we can stop this in a more committed and meaningful way from happening to others in our society.
Ontario has found some very interesting statistics recently. According to a government survey released just a few days ago 49 per cent of those asked believe women provoke sexual assault with their clothing or behaviour. Even today 49 per cent of the people in a survey believe that women actually bring on their own assaults.
If that does not speak volumes about the need for attitudinal change, education in our schools and a public program to educate our society, I do not know what does.
We talk about wanting to do something about violence against children. A psychiatrist spoke recently before the
Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General during a hearing on crime prevention. He said that if we want to make the most meaningful impact on children so they do not become children at risk and young offenders then the best time to work with them is between the day they are bom and their third birthday. The younger we identify potential children at risk, the more we can do to help them.
Our school system is important, yet there are people who say that is a provincial jurisdiction. Let us work with the provinces. Do not do it without the provinces. After all, the federal government has promoted the Canada food guide. Surely we can do something to actually reduce child sexual abuse and violence in the home.
Another statistic says that 66 per cent of those people polled believe drug or alcohol consumption is a major cause of sexual assault. That maybe true in a lot of cases, but we cannot allow that to become something we use to postpone dealing with the problem. That is like saying automobile accidents are caused because of over-consumption of alcohol.
I also want to commend the province of Quebec for the work it is doing. I want to read a statement from May 5 of this year. It says:
Deadbeat dads who don't keep up with child support payments may lose their driver's licence and have their income tax refund seized, warns Quebec's justice minister. Gil Remillard says he plans to introduce a bill this autumn to make it easier to collect support payments. "The question of support payments is of deep concern because it affects the greatest problem of women heading singleparent families," Remillard told a legislative committee Monday. Support payments are not a way of punishing a wage-earning spouse after a marriage breakup, he said. "They are a parental obligation".
There are signs that things are improving.
I want to work with the government to get this legislation through. We want to examine it. We want to deal with it constructively. Let us move on and do more to correct the problem of abuse against women and children in this country.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-126 which is a proposed piece of legislation which would criminalize the ongoing harassment and terrorism particularly of women by ex-partners or by strangers.
May 6, 1993

I want to give some examples of what kind of behaviour we are talking about today. Many people have shared their horrific experiences with me. A woman is confined and sexually assaulted for nine and a half hours. Her attacker's trial is in three months' time and he is out on bail. He is terrorizing her, stalking her and trying to intimidate her into not testifying. She has called the police. They say they cannot do anything. She got a restraining order which he broke and he received only 15 months of probation. He is still out there following her, threatening her and her children.
Another man developed an obsessive interest in a woman he did not know after seeing her in a restaurant. This young woman lives in my community in British Columbia. For four years he has phoned her at work and at home at all hours of the day and night, up to 20 calls a day. He has sent her letters, followed her on the street and watched her house at night. He has insisted he is going to marry her. He has damaged her car and phoned her to call her names which I cannot repeat here. This woman has had to move from her home and get an unlisted phone number. She has contacted the police.
The offender has admitted all of his actions to the police but no charges were laid. Police said that what he had done was not a crime. She also got a restraining order but it was completely ineffective and continues to be.
Probably the most common case of stalking is when a woman is terrorized by an estranged husband or boyfriend. In one case a woman suffered physical and psychological abuse by her partner for seven years. She left him, which takes great courage, and he refused to accept that she was taking control over her own life. He has been stalking her for three years now. He watches her home and her work place. He follows her to stores and to the homes of friends. She has received over 300 calls from him in four months. She is afraid to go outside. She has contacted the police but they did not lay charges. They told her that unless he threatened her directly or physically harmed her they could not do anything.
The abusive behaviour continued to escalate and then they did lay charges. She now has a court order that says he cannot contact her, follow her, watch her or come within 500 metres of her work place or home. He has
Government Orders
broken all of these restrictions and yet only one charge has been laid. He received a $300 fine and two years of probation but no jail term. He continued to stalk her.
In court his lawyer tried to make a case that she really wanted his advances and was playing hard to get. She has no privacy. Her children worry about her safety. He has pointed a gun at her neighbour and tried to force a man who he thought she was dating off the road. He has told her he will fix it so she can never have a relationship with another man and no man will ever want to date her.
Imagine having to live like this for the rest of one's life. Imagine having to live with one's curtains drawn, afraid that someone is peering in one's window. Imagine being afraid to answer the phone, afraid of a stream of abusive language, threats or just plain silence. Imagine being afraid to leave one's home or afraid to come back to one's own home.
These are just a few of the actual cases I have received from women who have been stalked and who gave me permission to use their stories as examples of what we are talking about today.
Too often women are killed by those who have stalked them. The majority of women who are murdered in Canada are murdered by their partner or ex-partner. Often this type of criminal harassment or terrorism has been a precursor to that murder.
In all the cases I have given we are talking about power and control, or the attempt to have power and control over another person's life. It really has nothing to do with love, affection or spumed love. It is all about power and control over another's life.
Unfortunately, some police officers, some Crown attorneys and some judges do not see this behaviour as threatening, or they feel they do not have the tools to do anything about it. Recent hearings before the commission on policing in British Columbia have confirmed what women's organizations and women who have been stalked have known for a long time: restraining orders do not work.
In one municipality police say they will not enforce restraining orders at all because they call for a peace officer to enforce them and they do not consider the orders specific enough. Police across the province say they are reluctant to enforce restraining orders because

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
they do not know whether or not the order has been varied by the same or another judge.
Restraining orders leave the onus on the woman. Getting a restraining order requires a woman to go to court. She must pay for lawyers and must wait while her life may be at risk. We certainly need to reform the code provisions to enable the police to react right away to criminal harassment without leaving the onus on these terrorized women themselves.
What is required is not only a law but mandatory education for the judiciary and law enforcement officials in how and when to use it. They need to have in-depth training about violence against women and women's equality. They need to be able to see these events from the perspective of a woman who has been abused and terrorized. Otherwise the law will be meaningless.
One of the concerns I have raised with the bill, and I know others have, is the issue of reasonable fear. Police officers, Crown attorneys and judges will have to accept that the harassment was enough to cause fear in a reasonable person.
Who is this reasonable person? The Minister of Justice has assured me that the woman's circumstances will be taken into account. How can he assure me of that when every day police are called and some are aware of women's circumstances but some certainly are not?
Is the reasonable person someone leading a relatively privileged life with a lot of power and faith in the system, who has the money to take steps to protect herself? That is likely the person who will be deciding whether or not to pursue the charges in court. The panel on violence against women heard from one lawyer who said that when a battered woman comes to him he usually tells her to go back to her husband because she will probably end up there anyway.
Does this man understand what an abused woman's reasonable fear is? Is the judge who makes the final decision about whether a woman reasonably feared for her life and safety well versed in how abuse and harassment affect women's lives? There is no mandatory training or screening of judges or Crown prosecutors on these issues before or after they are appointed to the
bench. That is what must go hand in hand with this legislation.
I want to make it clear that there are police officers, Crown attorneys and judges out there who are compassionate and who have acted in the best interests of women. However we are all familiar and we all know of cases where the most inappropriate comments about women's lives have come from the bench itself.
All of them, not just some of them, need to have the information about the effects of violence against women, including criminal harassment which will help them do their jobs effectively and act quickly to prevent the abuse and deaths which result from this behaviour.
Some people have advised women who are harassed and stalked to quit their jobs, pull their children out of school and move away but moving often does not solve this problem. These men are obsessed with controlling these women's lives. Short jail terms do not appear to deter them. They continue their harassment and follow these women to other provinces and even other countries.
Women cannot afford to hire private security guards and why should they? Why should victims of a crime be the ones to pay?
I am interested in seeing a strong and effective anti-stalking law which will be properly enforced. I congratulate the Minister of Justice on bringing this bill forward. I only wish, as the previous speaker said, we had seen it earlier.
It is in this interest that I hope the government will agree to hold full committee hearings and be flexible about accepting amendments which will strengthen the bill. I have outlined my concerns about the bill in a letter to the Minister of Justice and he replied. I know he also would like to see this bill passed quickly.
We must ensure the bill reflects the realities and concerns of women who have been stalked and the women who have raised our awareness about the issues of violence against women. I want to see the bill clarified, particularly the reasonable fear aspect, and I want to see a clause that does exempt legitimate labour disputes.
May 6, 1993

Two of the minister's officials have said that the bill could not be used in labour disputes. One of them said it probably could be used in a labour dispute, and it should be, if picketers exhibited the behaviour described in the bill. This shows a lack of understanding of the ongoing terror women face at the hands of abusive men who stalk them in comparing them with labour picketing. It also shows an absolute faith in the criminal justice system which is not borne out by history.
I appreciate the minister's point that section 423 is rarely used in labour disputes so there is little likelihood that this stalking provision will be used for that purpose, but we must not enact Criminal Code provisions which could capture behaviour we do not want to see captured.
Sexual assault laws were not designed to punish people who have AIDS, but they have twice been used to charge people who may have transmitted the AIDS virus to others. The criminal harassment provision of Bill C-126 is based on wording similar to a statute specifically designed to be used in labour disputes.
If the government does not intend the bill to be used this way, it should adopt just such a proviso as some of the bills in the United States have exempting legal labour picketing, as my private member's bill did. I understand the minister does not want to make exceptions for some circumstances and not others, but there is a precedent for such exemptions within the Criminal Code of Canada.
Homicide is against the law but in the circumstances of self-defence it is not punished as murder. There are laws on the books about sedition, with an exception for peaceful criticism of the state. There are exceptions in firearms laws for members of the Canadian forces and for police officers. It does make sense to include appropriate exemptions in the Criminal Code of Canada as we have done with other legislation.
I would like the government to consider a minimum jail term for people who continue to criminally harass their victims while subject to a restraining order. The minister wrote that this might be too onerous a sentence for someone who disobeyed a restraining order in a minor way and may lead to offences where there is no restraining order in place being taken less seriously.
Government Orders
There is a six-month minimum jail term for a second offence of drunk driving. It is meant to communicate that government takes the issue of drunk driving seriously. Stricter drunk driving laws and education on this issue have resulted in a change in societal attitudes about driving while impaired and subsequently a decrease in this kind of dangerous behaviour.
Surely the government must treat violence against women equally seriously. Lives and health are just as much at risk. We cannot overnight change abusive men and social attitudes which allow this kind of abuse against women to continue. A criminal harassment law will not stop criminal harassment altogether, but we can get abusive men away from their victims while we continue to work every day on the larger issues that are the root cause of violence against women. I do not believe that six months in jail is too onerous a sentence for a repeat offender.
I maintain my concern that two similar provisions will exist in the Criminal Code but with very different penalties. Why is it that following with intent to harass carries a maximum penalty of five years but following with the intent to control someone's lawful movements and behaviour is punishable only on a much lesser penalty of summary conviction?
Stalkers are trying to control the lives, the movements and the behaviour of their victims. In some cases the wording of existing section 423 can better apply to the situation of stalking, and yet police officers are supposed to somehow magically know they are not supposed to use that section. Some police officers currently charge stalkers using section 423. It is simply inappropriate to have essentially the same behaviour criminalized twice with substantially different penalties. The portions of section 423 which overlap with this new provision should be repealed.
The minister said in his letter to me that there was virtually no overlap between the two provisions and that they differed quite markedly. I would like to read into the record subsection 423(1) with paragraphs (c) and (f), and then I will read the proposed criminal harassment provision with paragraphs (a) and (c).
Everyone who wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the
purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything
that he has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he has a lawful

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
right to abstain from doing, persistently follows that person from place to place, or besets or watches the dwelling-house or place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be.
The new provision states:
No person shall, without lawful authority and with intent to harass another person or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to subsection (2) that causes the other person reasonably to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them. The conduct consists of repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them, or besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be.
There are differences, and in many ways the new wording is better in that the element of recklessly as to whether harassment occurs means that intent to harass does not have to be proven. The new provision is broader in that if a woman's children or other family members are stalked this would also constitute a part of the harassment behaviour. However there are also similarities and this leaves the situation unclear.
What is the definition of communicating when it is used in the bill? Does it include sending flowers every day, putting flowers inside a locked car so the woman would know that he could get to her at any time? Does it include putting a cup with the logo of her work place on her doorstep at home to let her know that he knows where she is working?
The minister has assured me this would probably be seen as communicating, but I am not sure probably is good enough. There are provisions in the Criminal Code that police could now use to charge stalkers but they are not consistently used. Women have faced some appalling attitudes within the criminal justice system.
We have to spell provisions out for many people. We cannot assume that the police and the justice system personnel are telepathic or understand exactly what the minister means in the legislation. We must make the law as clear as possible and as reflective as possible of women's own experiences of dealing with this kind of terrorizing behaviour.
There is a lot of non-verbal stuff that goes on. Leaving dead rats on the doorstep, is that communicating? Why should Crown attorneys have to focus on whether such an act constitutes communication instead of criminalizing any act meant to harass, alarm or frighten an
individual? We must give the police the tools they need to charge these individuals and not make it difficult for police and Crown attorneys to use the law and put them in a position of having to second guess what Parliament's intent is.
The minister argued against broadening the law past communication because non-criminal types of behaviour could be caught, but the law clearly states that there must be an intent to harass. It should not matter how that harassment manifests itself. If an act is meant to harass and cause fear in the victim, that should be good enough to exclude any innocuous behaviour. The restrictive definition in the bill may exclude many of the behaviours actual stalkers use to intimidate, to frighten and to control their victims' lives.
Some 26 B.C. municipalities have so far passed resolutions in favour of anti-stalking legislation. I want to co-operate with the government in supporting this bill as long as adequate consultation with concerned groups takes place and the government is flexible about amendments that will strengthen the bill.
The bill also contains provisions unrelated to criminal harassment that would make it easier for child witnesses to testify in court. It would prevent repeat paedophilic sex offenders from holding positions of trust over children or from loitering around schools and playgrounds. I support these provisions. This represents a humane understanding of the reality of child sexual abuse and these are sensitive steps to change procedures of court testimony for children.
The bill would also overturn existing law stating that a wife and husband cannot be accused of conspiring with each other. This law was put in place when the husband and wife were seen as one person, the husband, and reflects sexist attitudes. I feel we should be moving in a direction that recognizes women as free and independent individuals.
However the concerns I have about the lack of adequate mandatory education for police officers, Crown attorneys and judges in issues of violence against women and women's equality may lead to charges of conspiracy being brought against women who have been coerced into whatever behaviour simply by the fact that she is in an abusive relationship. The courts do not have a
May 6, 1993

consistent and adequate grasp of the inequality of power and dynamics of abuse within marriages.
In conclusion, mandatory, in-depth education must come hand in hand with changes in laws so that police forces, Crown prosecutors and judges understand the reality of this kind of behaviour, and the social and economic power differences between men and women in our society.
I support this bill as a positive first step by the Minister of Justice. I hope very sincerely that we can do the work that needs to be done in the committee stage to ensure that this bill passes, with amendments, before Parliament adjourns.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I have a comment and a question.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the member for New Westminster-Burnaby on a very powerful, detailed and persuasive speech. I see the Minister of Justice in the House and I am pleased about that. I am sure he was listening.
This is a model of how we should be doing legislation. I know the member for New Westminster-Burnaby mentioned in her speech that she had exchanged letters with the minister and some detailed responses about how to make this bill better. I want to express my view, as the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby did, that the minister should seriously consider, and I think he said yesterday in the justice committee he would, the changes that we in the New Democratic Party have suggested would make this stalking bill more effective.
The member for New Westminster-Burnaby mentioned the appalling attitudes in the criminal justice system. She said that the law should reflect women's experiences and detailed a number of experiences and specific situations. I started in the criminal justice system, believe it or not about 20 years ago now, as a young Crown attorney. My boss was a fellow named George Campbell.


An hon. member:: I thought you were going to say as an offender.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, not as an offender. My first job was as a Crown attorney in the family court. My boss was a fellow named George Campbell who had two daughters, one of whom is running for the Conservative leadership.
Government Orders
I recall our attitudes at the time, those of all of us, not just the prosecutors. It was a good group of people. We worked with the police and they were good. However sometimes our attitudes lingered from another era. The attitude was that the woman said she was threatened but she has said that before and she will be back with him so let us get a restraining order. If there was a case in which we thought that a woman was going to be hurt we would do our best to get a restraining order.
However, it was true in those days and I think it is still true, as the hon. member said forcefully, that restraining orders are weird things in the justice system. They vary, are not obeyed enough, are difficult for the police and so on. I thought she made a good point. It was borne out in my own personal experience, albeit a few years ago, in the criminal justice system as both a Crown attorney and defence counsel. I know my attitudes have had to change a lot, helped I might say by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
Could the member tell the House a little bit more about her own private members' bill, how it differed from the government's bill and how she came about presenting the bill? I know she was ahead of the government on this issue. She has been leading the country on this issue.
This is perhaps an odd question but I think I can ask it in the tone of this debate. I was particularly impressed, and I think some of the members listening in the House were impressed, by the examples that the hon. member kept mentioning.
There was the rat at the door, the flowers in the car, the continual harassment. He even said he would go to another country or she would never have an affair with another man, or stopping the other man's car when he thought she was having a relationship with him when she was not.
Where did she get all these examples? Are women coming to her and saying these things? I would like to know a little more about that. I suspect some of the people who are watching on television and the people in the House would be interested.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam for his comments and his role as justice critic in our caucus, which he performs so well.

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
He helps me with the work that I am doing in terms of justice for women.
He asked where my bill came from. My own private member's bill that I introduced a few months ago came from the examples that I gave in my speech.
These are women who have contacted me and told me the tragedy and harassment they have been undergoing in situations of this kind of stalking. The letters I read from today were from women who had contacted me and told me that I could use the realities of this terrorizing behaviour in attempts to control their lives.
I want to commend those women for the courage they have in coming forward and sharing that not only with me but with other members of the House of Commons. I know that some of these women have also written to the justice minister to tell in very graphic and very real terms what this kind of abhorrent, criminal behaviour has done to their lives.
The member from Port Moody also asked me to talk a bit about my bill. I believe my bill is somewhat stronger. It does not provide for a summary offence, only an indictable offence, which I think is important. I do understand the minister's rationale for why he wants it to be an either/or kind of offence. I guess we will talk about that at committee.
The one thing I do want to say in response to my colleague is that it is sadly ironic that the government has brought forward this much needed legislation the same week that it brought down a budget that continued to make cutbacks to women's organizations and women's advocacy groups. We should all remember that decades ago these groups were advocating and bringing forward the issues of violence against women.
They raised our consciousness about that issue and have been the ones who have been providing support for terrorized women in these kinds of situations. It has not been our society in any structural way but the grassroots organizations formed by women and supported by women that have offered the support to battered women and women in situations of crisis in their lives.
I think we should all acknowledge their courage and the courage of the women who have told their stories that have resulted in this legislation coming forward.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have one other comment about another matter, in the spirit of this open debate we are having in the House.
In my speech I want to talk about reasonable fear because I am not sure I actually agree with the hon. member on that. Maybe it is because I think as a criminal lawyer. I am going to debate that a little bit more.
One of the points I wanted to raise was her raising the impaired driving case. I want to tell her in the House that I think it is a perfect example. I can remember when I was a prosecutor and a defence counsel. The attitude was that impaired driving was an offence, but boys will be boys or people will nudge, nudge, wink, wink. After we look at the statistics of the deaths and the difficulties, now it is much more serious.
Young people will now say: "You better not get in the car, Dad" or "You better be careful there, friend." We can see the difference. It came about by a public campaign and tougher penalties. That mandatory jail term did have an effect.
I just want to second what the hon. member said. I see parallels to that in what is happening with the threatening legislation and translated in the stalking. It was never really treated as being serious. Where there is a public component, as the hon. member mentioned in her speech, the educational component, we have to go with the two. The fellow who keeps harassing that woman and will not obey the threat of it then has to get hit hard and go to jail. There also has to be education generally. I think we are on that path, thanks to a large extent to the hon. member's work and I will not ask her to reply to that.


Hon. Mary Collins (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Environment) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate for a few minutes in this very important debate. I was delighted to hear both the Minister of Justice and the members of the two opposition parties giving their support in principle to Bill C-126 which is before us and to indicate that hopefully we can move ahead through the committee and have this bill come into law before this House recesses for the summer.
May 6, 1993

That is an indication of the co-operative nature of this House on some of these important issues, on something the Canadian public really wants. We can come together around issues that are important for Canadians, in this case the women of Canada, and take measures that are going to be of help to them.
This bill covers a variety of issues. The stalking issue is the issue that most of us have been addressing in this debate, but I do not think we want to forget that there are issues in this bill that relate to the protection of children and other components that relate to the protection of women. I think particularly of the provision that would enable a woman to leave her family home and take her children with her if she was a victim of violence and not be in any fear of the law saying she was abducting those children. That is important.
There is also the provision under which it would be a crime to take a child out of the country for the purposes of an activity that would be illegal in Canada. That has been an issue that has certainly come to my attention, particularly with respect to female castration and sexual offences against children. Those are two other areas that are very important in this bill.
I do want to come back to the provisions that relate specifically to criminal harassment, which is commonly known in the press as stalking. It is interesting that we are dealing with this issue.
I want to pay credit to the women of this House, the women on all sides of the House, who have made a remarkable difference. When I go out and talk to women I talk about how we must have more women in Parliament to bring their views, get involved in the public policy process and the making of laws because we do bring a different experience.
What has also been important, which was mentioned by my colleague and others, is that the awareness of these issues by our male colleagues has really become quite profound. I have noticed a remarkable change in terms of understanding because there has been this kind of interaction. That has to be all to the good for the Canadian public.
We now have a law in front of us that has come to this House as a result of a lot of work. I am sure that even five years ago people would not have been talking about this. It was happening. It was certainly happening to women, but there was a feeling that it was not on the public agenda. There was that provision in the Criminal Code which might have been used in certain circum-
Govemment Orders
stances. Women's organizations and individual women have brought this issue forward, as have women in the political areas both here in this House and at the provincial level. Many of my colleagues, status of women ministers at the provincial levels, have also raised this issue with me.
As a result of that we were able to come forward now, actually very quickly because the minister is just a new minister. His predecessor was certainly seized of this issue. We had communicated and discussed it on a number of occasions. The new minister has come forward and very quickly moved ahead with the conference in Toronto, to listen to the concerns that are coming forward and to introduce this legislation at this point.
It has been discussed certainly in earlier speeches of why the legislation is important. The statistics show that 48 per cent of women who are murdered are murdered by either husbands or ex-partners. We do not know exactly how many of those women may have been stalked or harassed. Even if it is only one or two, it is important that we have provisions in our law that might avoid those tragedies, might help them be able to live their lives without the fear of violence.
We certainly know the individual case studies of women who have been the victims of this kind of harassment in all its variations, whether it is the person who telephones constantly using threats, or besets, watches outside or drives by. We have heard a lot of it. Just recently in British Columbia there were a number of cases and more recently in Manitoba three very tragic cases.
We all know this kind of behaviour occurs. Sometimes people will ask: how does this happen in a society like ours? It is hard to know what goes on in the minds of those who stalk. It is not acceptable. It is certainly one part of dealing with the whole issue of how we can eliminate violence against women in our society, how we can ensure that women can live full equal lives in Canadian society. This is one part, one piece of putting together that full puzzle.
When I talked with the co-chairs of the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women they certainly raised this issue with me as well. I am looking forward to their report because I think it is going to really help us develop a more holistic view of many of the issues and the underlying attitudes and assumptions which need to be

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
changed in our society to deal with the broader issue of violence against women.
We are today dealing with one part of that puzzle. I was pleased to hear some of the specific issues that have been raised. I know in committee they will get an opportunity to look into them. As I look at this bill I see very important advantages in setting out very clearly the tests that are required under this bill. I think they are tests that are really important to women.
First of all, in our legal system there has to be the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty, and there would have to be an appropriate test. However this one says okay, there is either the intent to harass or there is recklessness in the behaviour or the conduct which then leads to harassment. There are the two elements there that are important.
The most important element is that it is the victim, primarily women although not exclusively, who then has a fear for her safety or the safety of her family. It is her view, it is her fear that is the test. I am not a lawyer but as I understand it after talking with lawyers that is the important point here. It is not someone else's test of reasonableness, it is because of her own experience, her own view. That is the test. In my mind that is one of the most important advances in this bill over some of the other pieces of legislation that I have seen even in the United States. We have certainly looked at those and tried to find through their experience what kind of improvements we might be able to include. I see this as an important move forward in that respect.
In terms of the description of the kinds of conduct, certainly it illustrates for us the besetting and the watching. In the provision that deals with communicating, it is communicating both directly or indirectly so that it can encompass the whole range of the kinds of activities which were mentioned before in this House. It might be sending flowers. We all like to receive flowers. But if one was sending flowers in a way and as a result of a history that would lead the woman to fear for her safety then that could be conduct which could be included as criminal harassment. Obviously each case would be looked at on its own merit.
As we examine the provisions of this bill we see they really are a remarkable move forward in providing not
only to women but also to the police the tools that they need in order to lay charges for this kind of activity.
I had the opportunity on Sunday to participate in a television show on Newsworld on this issue with phone-in calls. One of the calls came from a policewoman named Susan in Vancouver. She said just how important she felt this legislation was going to be to her as a policewoman to enable her to deal with situations, to give her the legal tools to be able to lay charges in those kinds of situations. She applauded this bill and remarked what an important move forward it is.
It is going to be a help there. It is going to be a help within our justice system, obviously, both for the lawyers and judges to have this kind of clear definition.
It is also going to be important in terms of the message it sends to society. Obviously legislation not only has a role in punishing those who commit the behaviour but also in preventing it. Ideally what we would like to do is prevent people from criminally harassing others.
By having a very explicit provision such as this, having very severe penalties with up to five years in jail, that kind of message is going to be out there. It is hopefully going to send a signal to anyone who would think: "Oh well, I can just do this, I can get away with that." It will say no. No, that is not acceptable. You can end up going to jail.
I would hope that would really help us in solving the problem for those to whom this is not a deterrent. Perhaps no law would be a deterrent because of their own behaviour or psychological attitudes. They too will get caught and hopefully removed as a result of jail sentences and no longer able to harass their victims. Those women will be able to live without fear of that kind of activity. This legislation has a lot of components to it that I believe are important.
Colleagues have raised as well the issue where the law is one thing, its implementation is another, and I agree. You have to have a law first obviously. We have to work with all those who are involved in the justice system to ensure that they understand and appreciate the importance of this law and the importance of women's experience.
May 6, 1993

Again I would like to applaud both the current justice minister and his predecessor, the present Minister of National Defence, for the important initiatives they have taken.
The first national conference on women in the justice system which was held in Vancouver a year and a half ago really brought out for the first time in this kind of forum the concerns and the issues. I was part of that meeting. It was a very powerful meeting.
As a result of that, attention is being paid both by ministers responsible for the status of women across the country and attorneys general. We are certainly looking forward to the reports that I anticipate will come forward a little later this spring to help us move forward in dealing with many of those issues.
Work is being done by groups like the Western Canadian Judicial Centre. Justice Campbell who heads up that centre, no relation to my hon. colleague, has really done some ground-breaking work with justices across western Canada in dealing with issues relating to gender in the justice system, aboriginal issues and issues relating to race.
I have attended some of the sessions that have been held, some of the training programs, and they have had a remarkable impact. They have had people almost in tears trying to deal with these very emotional, difficult
issues.
We are seeing important progress. That work has to continue in work through the National Judicial Council as well as being spread throughout other parts of Canada and work with police.
My hon. colleague, the Solicitor General, was here earlier in the House. I have talked with him about the RCMP and the work that is needed. A few months ago I wrote to police chiefs across the country on issues related to how they deal with some aspects of violence against women.
I have been encouraged by the replies I have been getting. There is a great deal of willingness out there. Obviously they need the tools and the programs to assist them.
Government Orders
I am heartened when I hear from police officers such as Susan in Vancouver who obviously understand. They are quite excited by the opportunity of this kind of change in the law.
I would encourage all colleagues, as they go through the hearing process over the next few weeks, to deal with the substance of this bill. If there are improvements that can be made, I know that my hon. colleague will be prepared to look at them and to move forward so that we can get this law into effect. It will help to provide the kind of protection, the legal foundation and the societal message to help us all deal with this and to end violence against women in this society.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister for the status of women. I know that her comments and the comments of my colleague from Halifax today in many ways are going in the same direction but there are a few differences.
The minister mentioned in her speech today about the need for education. She spoke about the voluntary program that has been put in place by the judiciary in British Columbia on gender sensitivity education.
I want to ask her this today. Does she not understand, as I do, that people going to a voluntary program are those who perhaps are the least in need of that kind of gender sensitivity education? Those who do not attend when it is a voluntary program are likely to be the people who are most in need of gender sensitivity education around the issues of abuse of women, power relationships and violence against women. We have all read the outrageous statements made by judges in virtually every jurisdiction in this country about women's reality. They do not think they have a problem. They think their attitude is the societally acceptable attitude.
Would she push her colleagues for mandatory gender sensitivity education for judges, for Crown prosecutors and for police forces so we can have some assurance that these police officers, these judges, these Crown prosecutors most in need of that education will receive it? Then we can go some way to changing the kind of societal attitudes these folks grow up with which are so damaging and allow the revictimization of women to happen within our court system.

May 6, 1993
Government Orders


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I will try to answer that briefly. Fortunately, those attitudes are changing and it is coming about because of public pressure and because it is not acceptable. Those issues get raised in the newspapers and it creates that kind of pressure.
I have had a lot of discussion about this issue with Justice Campbell and some others about the best way of bringing this about. The sense I still have is that they feel it is more successful than forcing people to do it. The feeling is that their minds will be closed and that they will not be as receptive.
The sense is that the way they are going about it now through the Western Canadian Judicial Centre and the work they are doing is having the greatest impact. They are bringing people into these programs who certainly have not been all that sympathetic to the issues.
That they are there as volunteers, although I think there is a great deal of pressure being put on in a variety of ways for them to go, results in changes of attitudes. The sense is that if we force people to attend there would be quite a backlash. I sensed that one time when I was at another kind of a program.
I think that we should continue to try and do it this way. I am prepared to look at the results of how we are doing. We are making progress, quite substantial progress. In my mind that is the better way to go in this respect.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, just briefly, I want to compliment the speakers who have participated in the debate today. In an effort to move things along I am not going to speak, but I hold the views of all of the people who have spoken today. I think some good points have been made.
I would like to address, if I may, the mandatory aspect of the comments of the speaker representing the New Democratic Party. I share the view of the minister that we are making progress and we have to continue to grind it out. We will never stop insensitive remarks from being made no matter how hard we try. We just have to keep grinding it out.
I had occasion to go to Newfoundland and speak to the Provincial Court Judges Association. I saw two very excellent video tapes that have been prepared by the Canadian Judicial Centre, one on family violence and the other on the sexual abuse of children. Both tapes are being used extensively.
I share the NDP member's sentiments on the need to continue to do it. I just have some hesitation with the mandatory aspect of it, especially with the judges. The first thing the judges are going to say is that we are interfering with judicial independence and they will take it off on that tangent. I do not think that serves our purpose, which is identical, to broaden the base of knowledge and sensitivity. I do not think there is any question that we have to do that. It ought to be mandatory that governments keep pushing them. That is where the mandatory aspects should come in.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise to take part in the debate this morning on what is a very necessary and long-awaited piece of legislation.
I want to compliment my colleague, the hon. Minister Responsible for the Status of Women and my colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby, the New Democratic Party's critic for the status of women, because as frequently happens, at least with the three of us, there are agreements that cross all party lines.
I want to talk a little about specifics. It was a very long time ago when I was in junior high school that I first heard the phrase "peace, order and good government". Lest anybody fears, no I am not about to reopen the constitutional debate. Peace, order and good government is the residual clause of section 91 of the British North America Act and it is the federal residual power.
When I first heard that clause in a civics class in junior high school I remember it had a ring to it and that ring has stayed with me all these many years. It is a peculiarly Canadian phrase. The desire for peace, order and good government is one of the things that makes us, as Canadians, anglophone, francophone or allophone, part of our national fabric and different from other people's national fabric.
However without the kind of legislation that this bill approaches a whole segment in our society does not have access to peace and order, not to say good government. Peace and security for women can be a very scarce commodity.
Before I get into the body of my remarks this morning, I want to comment on the questions and comments made by the two ministers earlier with regard to the question of mandatory training of judges. I have been howling, I hesitate to use that word howling, but it might be the appropriate word, for this very measure since the first
May 6, 1993

time I spoke in this Chamber, which I believe was in 1989.
I respect very much both minister's opinions. I understand their concerns about mandatory training and the freedom of the judiciary and all those things. I practised law for 10 years so I realize how important an independent judiciary is. I also know, Madam Speaker, and I think you and a number of other members of this House know, that there are judges with whom we will never make headway. I know judges and if I were not in the House of Commons I would be afraid to say what I am about to say. I am obviously not going to name names, but I know judges in my age group who do not understand what it is we are talking about. I would be prepared to make a fairly strong wager that most of the members of the legal profession in this House know whereof I speak.
There are judges who will not convict, who have the lowest conviction rates in matters that relate to those which require gender sensitivity. There are judges who will not convict in sexual assault cases unless the evidence is so far beyond the question of reasonable doubt that they would be knocked off the bench if they did not convict. There are some who do not convict even in those cases. There are judges who when faced with the inevitability of conviction will then sentence inappropriately. We all know this and we have all seen it. The point is that 40 per cent of the judges in this country, whether we are talking about those appointed federally or provincially, have not voluntarily taken advantage of the Canadian Judicial Institute's gender sensitivity training.
As my colleague from British Columbia said, 60 per cent have taken the sensitivity training. A number of them, certainly in my own region, are judges I know quite well and I have said to them: you people were not the ones I was worried about. I was not worried about them before they took the sensitivity training and I am not worried about them now.
While I do not disagree with the Solicitor General on the question of judicial independence, I am a lot more worried about the peace and security issue for women. While we have judges who still refuse to understand what the situation is then women in this country will not be secure, even when we have this legislation coming in
Government Orders
that, on the face of it, is not too bad. It needs some improvements.
My hon. colleague, the member for Cape Breton- The Sydneys, mentioned in his remarks how he wants to see this get to legislative committee because we think there are things that can improve it. We support the basic spirit, particularly in the area of stalking. We want to see the legislation passed and we want to see it out there. This legislation does not exist in a vacuum. There is only so much we can do as legislators, but there is a lot that the federal government can do by bringing its influence to bear.
I know that the Solicitor General is sympathetic and supportive in these areas. Let me give one anecdote about the RCMP in my constituency. It is actually Dartmouth constituency, but who is counting. I received a call not long ago from a former client and she said: "I do not know who else to call." She had been my client and I had done a divorce and some other work for her over the years.
She was involved in a new relationship and had been co-habiting with this man for six months. On the night in question he became violent. He physically abused her. He hit her. She phoned the police who came. He had already left the house. She said if he came bach she wanted the police to come and remove him from the house. It was her house. She owned the house and in the old Anglo-Saxon term, in fee simple, it was hers. She was the sole owner.
This man had been co-habiting with her for six months. In Nova Scotia the laws relating to matrimonial property only apply to people who are legally married; they do not apply to people who co-habit. TTie RCMP officer told my former client that it was the policy of the RCMP not to remove any man from a house if he had lived there for six months because he suddenly had a right under the Matrimonial Property Act. She said this to me and I told her that was insane.
The RCMP is perpetrating something that does not uphold the law in Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia it is only for people who are married. Whether that is right or wrong does not come into it; that is the law. There was the RCMP telling this woman it could not do anything. One presumes if a total stranger came up and walked into her house the RCMP would come and remove him,

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
but because this guy had lived there for six months it would not remove him.
I called the RCMP detachment and informed the superintendent of the law.
He said that was its policy and I said it was in conflict with the law. He did not think so. I asked for his fax number to fax him the relevant law and he said: "Oh, that doesn't matter."
"Agree with me," I say to the hon. President of the Treasuiy Board. I know he does. This is a case for a little gender sensitivity. We know it is. The point is that this kind of attitude exists. It may not be rampant any more. I do not believe it is rampant any more, but it exists in a significant enough number of cases in police departments. It also exists in Crown offices and, Heaven knows, it exists in the judiciary.
How are we going to eradicate it? I appreciate the minister's comment. I appreciate the Solicitor General's comment that it is easier to bring people through by drawing them in. What is the old expression? You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. The point is that we are losing some of these flies, and women and children are suffering as a result.
We have to do something and that is mandatory training of judges. Those of us in this House can push for mandatory training of judges appointed at the federal level and this government, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General can push their provincial counterparts for the same. Women deserve no less. Judges are not gods. They are ordinary mortals. Some of them are excessively ordinary and therefore deserve to be given a chance to understand what is really happening out there. It is for their own good as well as for the common good.
To get to my mutton, although I am not sure how much time I have left, the bill creates a new criminal offence of criminal harassment, what we have long known as stalking. The proposed provision prohibits anyone from repeatedly communicating with or following another person, any member of that person's family or anyone known to that person. It would include persistently following someone, spending extended periods of time watching someone's home or place of work, making harassing telephone calls, making contact with one's friends, neighbours, co-workers, et cetera.
A previous section of the Criminal Code, section 423, prohibited intimidation, but the need for the new law
arose from the difficult burden of proof under that section. Consequently there is good news and bad news in the bill and this is no condemnation of the government. This is the difficulty in passing legislation in this area. It becomes the question of the evidentiary test. The test is that the victim feels fear.
When I was in law school, particularly on the civil side, I can remember a wonderful law professor, a former dean of Dalhousie law school and former vice-president of Dalhousie, Horace Read, standing at the front of the room-I was in his 50th first-year law class-and asking: "What would a reasonable man do in this case?" Then he would say: "Oh, excuse me, what would a reasonable person do?"
In law schools across every country that follows the common law tradition the reasonable man test has always been brought in on the civil side in the area of intentional torts, negligence, et cetera, but it has also been brought in from time to time on the criminal side. The common phrase is: "What would the man on the Clapham omnibus think in this situation?" The problem that worries me, and this is why I want us to look at it very carefully in committee, is whether there is a difference in interpretation as to what the reasonable man would think in the circumstances and what the reasonable woman would think in the circumstances, and whether that particular gender differentiation makes a difference in Crown prosecutors' offices when the time comes to lay an information against an alleged perpetrator. That is my worry. One of the difficulties in communication between men and women in a whole lot of areas is a lack of comprehension about what causes fear.
I raise another anecdote from my law school days. I was taking a criminology course in my final year with three women and eight men. It was a seminar class with a male professor. We were talking about women's fear of violence. When I walked out of Dalhousie law school on University Avenue in the centre of Halifax after dark-it is dark from December until March by 4.30 in the afternoon-I would go to my car, unlock the door, reach in, turn on the dome light, check the back seat, jump in the car and lock the doors. The other two women in the room nodded. They knew exactly what I meant. I suspect that every woman in here knows what I mean as well. It is just something we do. It is one of those things that women do out of self-preservation when they are going to a locked car in the dark.
May 6, 1993

As I said, there were eight men in my class. One was a very dear friend of mine who practises law now in St. John's, Newfoundland. He took it as a personal affront. We argued for the next 40 minutes in class and he considered this to be a totally pointless exercise. He just could not believe that I felt that way or that I thought that way. We argued all the way down five floors in the elevator and out the door of the law school. He walked me to my car. As he was there I did not turn on the dome light or check the back seat. I figured he would check the back seat or he would be in the car. We argued all the way out to dinner and through dinner until I finally dropped him off back at the law school that night.
About six months ago I was in St. John's on political business and I ran into him. He is still arguing with me. This is a man of good faith and with as few gender biases as any male can have. He is of my generation, well educated and all of these things but he still does not see it.
I have argued these points with civil servants, with Crown prosecutors and lawyers and there are still a significant number of men who do not see it. Part of my worry is that if I cannot convince them then I am not quite sure who can.
I know the current Minister of Justice, the previous Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, the member for New Westminster-Burnaby, myself and all of us in this House want to ensure that this law will do what it is supposed to do. Therefore it has to have with it the requisite training for those people who are going to be administering and using this law. That means Crown prosecutors, police officers and judges.
If we do not have that training then the scenario will be clear in a number of places. Women will walk in and say: "Buddy has been sitting in his car outside my house for the last three nights." "Did he talk to you?" "No, he did not talk to me." "Has he come near you?" "No, he has not come near me." "Well, what's the problem?" "He frightens me." "Why does he frighten you?" "He just won't leave me alone. He is always there and he
Government Orders
looks at me funny." Believe me I have heard a lot of women, and I am sure many hon. members have too, use the expression: "He looks at me funny." We know what that means and we know that it can create fear.
I am not even faulting men who do not understand it. However I am saying that it exists and that this dichotomy of experience creates a dichotomy of belief. I am very afraid that even with this law and the change that has been long asked for without the requisite gender sensitization for personnel, that woman will leave the Crown office unassisted.
Again we have had the example brought up of flowers. I can hear it. Madam Speaker, I bet you can hear it too. A Crown prosecutor says: "He sent you a dozen roses three days in a row. What are you complaining about?" Yet again, we know what she is complaining about. We know that the arrival of the florist's box strikes terror into her heart. We know that the car parked outside her child's school strikes terror in her heart. The worst thing of all is the frustration of being unable to communicate that terror.
I am not certain that we can amend this legislation. I am not certain that this legislation is not as good as it can be right now. I think that is what committee is for. That is what we have to look at. We have to hear witnesses and do some consultation to know that.
However, I would be prepared at this point to say that this is probably as good as we can do as legislators. However, we have to do more. The government must do more with its influence over the provincial governments and with its own ability to mandate response from its own appointees. That is what we have to do. We have to see this government taking a lead and saying: "You must take these courses if you wish to remain on the bench. You must take these courses if you wish to be the chief personnel officer for the Public Service of Canada so that you understand what sexual harassment is all about. You must take these courses if you are going to be in a position to deal with people who are going to suffer under the disability of being a victim of the kind of behaviour that this legislation has been brought in to combat."

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
If we do not do that then we are offering the women of Canada half a loaf. Half a loaf might be better than none but after all these years and all the suffering, pain and grief the women of Canada deserve better.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I just want to make a short comment and offer a suggestion for the consideration of the hon. member, the Minister of Justice, the department and all members of this House.
The bill before us is a very good bill and in fact creates an offence relating to stalking. Inevitably once there is a conviction on that offence there is inevitably going to be a prohibition order issued setting out terms and conditions that would prohibit people from carrying out this kind of activity in the future.
A problem has been pointed out to me by the metropolitan Toronto police department in enforcing that kind of an order. Say a police officer is now called by a past victim who is being protected by this order. When the police officer arrives that person points out the breach of that activity. The police officer then has no power to arrest without a warrant. The police officer has to go away and hopefully return in time to prevent any problem from occurring as a result of a potential breach of that order.
That has two impacts. First, it means that the police officer cannot act immediately in relation to the situation. Second, it creates a lack of confidence in the justice system on the part of the people who are being protected by that order. They see a police officer arrive and then the police officer says he has to leave and that he cannot do anything without going back to a justice of the peace and getting a warrant. He will come back and hopefully the activity will still be going on and he will be able to do something about it.
One may be aware-I believe the Minister of Justice is aware-that I had introduced an amendment on this when we dealt with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I put forward my private member's bill, Bill C-393, giving the police officer or peace officer the power to arrest without warrant, where he finds a person breaching a condition of this sort.
The department, I am sure, has some concerns and some problems with that but hopefully we can find a way
to overcome those problems. I would ask that the hon. member, the Minister of Justice and the House give that consideration. It is a very real problem with the enforcement of this kind of legislation once a breach has been established, a conviction has been registered and an order made trying to prevent that from happening in the future.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Don Valley East. As frequently happens I find myself in agreement with his suggestion. I know that the reaction of the police is sometimes very frustrating for the police officers as well because of a lack of the necessary legal tools to deal with a situation such as this.
I am delighted to see that the justice minister is here and perhaps it may be something that we can deal with in committee. Therefore I would certainly support that very strongly if we find that it can make its way into the legislation.
However, I reiterate that is not the only problem. Again I recall another situation that I dealt with in my legal practise. I recall a client calling me one night and telling me that her estranged husband was beating down her back door while she was in her house, very frightened, with her children. I immediately called the police and identified myself. I had been a prosecutor as well as a practising lawyer in private practise and they certainly knew who I was. I reported this incident and told them that there was an order of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia prohibiting this man from coming within* number of feet of his wife's house. The response I got from the police officer was: "How do I know you are a lawyer?" All I wanted to do was drive down to the police station and commit an act of violence myself because the frustration was so bad.
That night the woman fortunately was not hurt but the children in the case saw their father behaving in a manner whereby he broke into the house and there was a violent exchange of words-thank God not blows-in that particular instance. Two small children, not to mention the woman herself, were subjected to a horrific incident because a police officer decided to play cute.
Again many police officers do not react like that. However, while any of them do, we have to do something about the mandatory training.
May 6, 1993


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure and honour to speak in support of this bill.
Basically this bill will create in particular a new offence of criminal harassment that would prohibit anyone with the intent to harass from repeatedly communicating or following another person, or anyone known to that person. It would also include watching where a person or anyone known to them, lives or works. It would include engaging in threatening conduct directed to that person or any other member of the family. As well this bill would increase the maximum penalty for this offence to five years in prison.
As we know, currently many of the activities usually associated with stalking are covered by the Code but the problem has been that the burden of proof is very high. The victims of stalkers have traditionally had a difficult time convincing police that they had reasonable grounds to fear for their lives.
Only recently in my constituency of Ottawa Centre right in the downtown core of Ottawa we had a very unfortunate incident where one of my constituents who worked in my riding, Patricia Allen, was killed by her estranged husband. We were informed that this individual had carried out threats before and then eventually committed his crime sometime in November 1991.
That is one reason I was delighted to see the government coming forward with this legislation. At least we can prevent those kinds of things from happening in the future to people in our community and our country.
We have seen a trend of increase in violent crimes in our society. In fact, in the city of Ottawa alone for instance, if we look at the statistics from 1991-92, we have an increase in sexual assaults and sexual offences by approximately 43.4 per cent. We also had an increase in assault in general by about 8 per cent. If anything this is a cause for us to be alarmed and to take notice of the grave situation that exists in our community.
A recent study funded by the Ontario Women's Directorate found that of 551 women murdered in Ontario between 1974 and 1990, 78 per cent of those were killed by their former spouses or companions who
Government Orders
stalked them prior to their death. Obviously women's fears are well grounded.
I say this in all fairness because I had an experience in my riding of Ottawa Centre with a constituent of mine just as recently as the beginning of this year, 1993. We dealt with her for a number of months. We tried to help her out while she was going through a very difficult situation.
She had written a letter commenting on her situation, making some suggestions and trying to let parliamentarians and the public know what a woman really had to go through when faced with a situation such as this one. On February 3, 1993 she said: "I laid a complaint against a male adult with the Ottawa police after the person had harassed me at my place of employment over the phone since January 14. Some days I would receive six calls and some days fourteen calls, depending on how drunk he was. On February 2 and 3 he threatened me three times. He threatened to teach me a lesson I would not forget. I should not be stupid. In another call he threatened to take care of me for good and in another he threatened to have his friends take care of me for good. Later that day he told his sister he wanted revenge and he would have the Mafia take care of me. To prove his point a messenger called on his behalf."
Her letter goes on to say that when she informed the police they had a bench warrant issued. The charges were harassment and uttering a threat to do bodily harm. "Two days later, on the advice of the police and my lawyer, I spoke to a justice of the peace and applied for a peace bond. I was told to appear in court three weeks later. If the accused appeared he would be asked to agree to sign the bond. The judge could order the bond or he could be given time to seek legal advice.
This individual was arrested February 11, charged and appeared in court where he was released with an undertaking order. From February 12 to 19 I received calls while he was under that order where the callers hung up when I answered or held on to the line until I hung up or just breathed into the phone.
On my first appearance in the court room I had to wait in the waiting room with this man who had harassed me. This man who had threatened me just walked in off the

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
street and no one searched or checked him. While he did not speak to me he did play with my mind. He glared, he mumbled, he made little gestures, enough to intimidate me into believing he would get me.
I was told a Crown attorney would be available to speak to me prior to the hearing. Well if he or she was there I could not identify him or her." Obviously this constituent has not been to court too often.
"The procedure was" she said, "who was on my side and who was not? What was expected of me? What do I call the judge? I sat for two hours until I realized they used numbers not names. When you are finally called you stand in the aisle as a victim. No one talks to you, they talk around you. You can hardly hear who is speaking, never mind knowing who is speaking.
Defence lawyers, 80 per cent legal aid, and their clients have more rights. They have consulted with each other. You have talked to no one. The case remained for two weeks. No one asked you if it was okay. No one tells you why and the Crown still has not said if they are going to act on your behalf."
Two weeks later this victim went through the same routine. The victim appeared in the court at 8.30 a.m. and this time the accused failed to show. The victim sat in the court room for three and a half hours until the judge ordered a bench warrant. This constituent works and her time is not seen as valuable to the court unfortunately.
She goes on to say: "If I had not appeared at 8.30 a.m. as requested would the court have waited three and a half hours to see if I would appear? No. I expect that if I had failed to appear the case would have been thrown out."
In the meantime this male adult has been unemployed for three and a half years, was given free legal advice, failed to appear and all is okay. Prior to that he had failed to appear on impaired driving. Two weeks later, in early April, he was rearrested, thank God, and received the following charges: an impaired driving charge of 30 days; harassment threats and failing to appear, which were dropped eventually. He was sentenced to only 15 days. The victim was advised of sentencing but not of the release date.
This individual went on to say the following: "As a victim I would die every time the phone rang at work. I would die every time I was paged to go to the main floor of our store. I do not feel safe at home. I do not feel safe at work. I no longer feel I can go for the long walks I used to so much enjoy. I no longer feel I can shop at the Rideau Centre as he used to hang out there. I must always look over my shoulders. I will always be a victim as long as he breathes. I must document everything. I have done everything in my power within the system to handle the situation. If this man wants to carry out his threat he will basically get me one way or another."
I think it is important for the minister to listen to one of those victims and hear what her impression was of the legal system.
She said: "I feel the court system and the officers of the court did not treat this case with the degree of seriousness I feel as a victim. I felt revictimized every time I had to appear in court. I hated being treated like I didn't count or exist. I found the hearings to be confusing, humiliating and overwhelming. I felt I was given the run around."
She went on to say: "I never knew the name of the Crown or whether the person was a male or female and so on. I never knew the name of the judges and I never felt I was given a straight answer from anyone. I couldn't leave the court room during the court time to visit the ladies room for fear while I was out my name would be called and they would think I was a no-show.
I was supposed to be summoned to court after he was rearrested. I'm still waiting, yet I have been to court twice. There was no one to explain your rights or court room procedures. Can I talk unless I am spoken to? Can I ask a question of the court? Can I actually say, 'Sorry, that day and time is not convenient?' I never felt safe in the court room or in the court building."
She goes on. This particular constituent is typical of the many victims all across Canada from coast to coast. I think this bill will go a long way toward dealing with situations such as this.
Of course, there are a lot of improvements needed. Nothing is perfect. At the committee level and the hearing level there are a lot of necessary amendments.
May 6, 1993

Hopefully the government as well as the opposition will co-operate and make sure they are implemented.
There are some points we should note. Court houses and police stations should have information desks reserved especially for victims of violence so they know their rights and can, as this victim did, overcome insecurities about pressing criminal charges.
Convictions and bail conditions, such as in this case should be marked with a special code in the police computer to ensure swift action when repeat offences take place.
Women such as this victim should be informed when their violent partner is being released from jail or is on bail. Suspects ordered to turn over weapons should be accompanied from court by police officers who can seize the weapons immediately. Fortunately in this case, that did not apply but who knows?
Methods should be taken to see men removed from the family house in cases where family violence occurs.
This was part of a proposal that was suggested by our leaders on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada. Those who are interested in it can call any Liberal member's office to obtain a copy of it.
Consideration should be given to following the London, Ontario lead in having a social worker accompany police to scenes of domestic violence.
These are some of the suggestions and I hope the government will take them to heart when it deals with this legislation to ensure that a proper amendment is made to this bill. Hopefully it will become law before the end of this session in June.
We are concerned on this side of the House that this good piece of legislation will not go through the House of Commons. We want to make sure this legislation becomes law before the end of this term. Otherwise we are back to square one with an election coming, hopefully early this fall.
One would say that the ultimate answer to all this is to go to the root of the problem, to the socio-economic fabric of our society. We must have proper outreach programs for victims as well as potential victims in our society.
Outreach programs should reach out to our educational system through our schools from coast to coast so at
Government Orders
least our youth and our children will be given the necessary information before they finish their schooling and go out into society.
Excellent work has been undertaken by the police force in our city in particular. I have worked with it on a number of occasions and it should be used as a model for police forces across Canada.
Information exchanges should continue. However more important than anything, we must have a co-operative approach when it comes to dealing with the issues of violence, crime prevention and urban safety. We have to have a cohesive approach that goes across municipal, provincial and federal levels.
We have to have a national strategy to deal with the question of urban safety. It is extremely alarming to see the kind of situations that occur on a daily basis, particularly in our urban centres across Canada. I was alarmed by the statistics released lately that showed an increase in violent crimes in this magnificent land of ours.
It showed there has been an increase in the number of irregularities that have taken place in our society. When we compare Canada to the rest of world, we have one of the best and most fascinating social programs anywhere. One would suggest what is lacking perhaps is a strategy to look at the heart and root of the problem itself.
Like any legislation, we have to start moving a little more aggressively in the area of prevention. This legislation is good. It deals with the result of a problem. It deals with a situation after it has occurred, but we also need preventive measures. There is no point giving somebody a pill or medication when perhaps the same problem is going to repeat itself a little later.
I would rather see us focus on ensuring that we have a healthy community and a healthy society through preventive measures. That is where we have to start. The government and society as a whole must try to go to the heart of the problem by introducing proper outreach programs, proper educational programs and proper mechanisms to prevent those kinds of horrible things from happening in our communities and our society.
I want to commend our Ottawa police force for working tirelessly with community groups, non-profit organizations, student and youth organizations, municipal agencies, school boards, business groups and so on. Police organizations such as ours here could and should be used as a model for the rest of the country, for other

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
police forces around Canada and perhaps around the world. I know they are doing a tremendous amount of work in that area. We have to create more partnerships and we have to approach the issue of partnerships in terms of a cohesive approach. I would say there is a lot to be done in this area and we can do a lot more. Obviously this legislation goes a long way in trying to address a good part of the problem, but I can say that no one piece of legislation will solve all the problems all the time. This is a very good step forward.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned trying to get the bill through before Parliament finishes. We know we are in about the last month of this Parliament. I wanted to take him up on that to see whether he has any proposals.
I do not know if the hon. member is familiar with the fact that today we are debating what we call the stalking bill, Bill C-126.1 think it will pass today as I think there is a feeling of getting it to committee. That means this is second reading and it has to go to committee. It has to come back to the House for third reading and amendments and then it has to go to the Senate to become law.
We are also going to deal with psychoactive substances later today, Bill C-85, which believe it or not, opens up the whole question of marijuana. I cannot believe this government is opening up penalties and dealing with the Narcotic Control Act which would enable some parts of the house to force a vote on that and have the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Defence vote on it. That would be an interesting vote would it not?
This is how this government thinks. It does not think. It is going to bring this bill forward. It is going to bring forward a bill on sentencing tomorrow. Tell the hon. member for Ottawa Centre about that. Again it is at second reading. It will go to committee and again come back to the House. It is going to bring a bill on the proceeds of crime with the same procedure. The minister announced a few minutes ago a bill on child pornography.
There is nothing wrong with these bills. They all have good parts in them. However, I am asking the hon.
member if he thinks the government is serious. I do not know how he feels about this, but if they should take one of these bills like the stalking bill or maybe one or two of the bills and concentrated on them and tried to get them through the House and through Parliament before Parliament ends then it could say to Canadians that it had actually done something.
I think it is going to go to an election campaign and say: "We have all these bills. We have a law and order agenda." It is fooling the Canadian people as it never really intended to pass the bills at all.


Mac Harb: The short answer to that is if there is a will there is a way.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, time is short and I just have a quick comment and then a question for the hon. member.
As a member of Parliament I am delighted to see this bill being brought in as legislation. There is some concern that I have with my colleagues on section 42 which prohibits intimidation that one will generally find is using violence or threats of violence against somebody or their spouse or children et cetera or watching somebody. I would like to see that strengthened and made more flexible in some regard so that it would be basically easier to prove. Intent is something I think we are really all concerned about.
The other aspect that I would like my hon. friend to comment on is that it is all very well to introduce legislation no matter how good it is, but there is concern about how quickly we can get things done even with legislation. I would ask my hon. colleague for Ottawa Centre if he really has thought about trying to get the federal government to work with the provinces so that, for example, items such as the issuing of a peace bond can be done much easier, more quickly and effectively.


Mac Harb: I want to thank my colleague from Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception for his question. However, I see that you are standing up, Madam Speaker, to declare it one o'clock. Will we come back and answer the question afterwards?
May 6, 1993


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am quite prepared to listen to the hon. member. Will the House be ready for the question after?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: No. The hon. member could certainly answer after Question Period this afternoon as we will keep on studying this bill.
As it is now 1 p.m. I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.01 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the number one issue in Canada today is the deficit. That is why my private member's Bill C-301 is now at committee stage. It is one of only 5 per cent that ever make it that far.
The bill has three principles: government accountability for its spending; fair and efficient use of taxpayer dollars; and proper controls in place to eliminate cost overruns. They will help the Auditor General and every member of Parliament do the job they were hired and elected to do.
By ensuring a strict monitoring of funds spent by Parliament we will uncover wasteful spending and eliminate it. It is time for action.
The Conservatives are always complaining the Liberals have no ideas to control the deficit. I urge the finance minister to take a look at Bill C-301, supported by the Liberals, the NDP and Tory backbenchers. It is a modest and moderate proposal that is a step in the right direction. It is some common sense, for a change.


INCOME TAX ON CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abibiti):: Mr. Speaker, how would you like to pay income tax on income that is not
your own? If, like 500,000 individuals in Quebec, you receive child support payments, you have to add the total amount to your own income and pay tax on money that is not intended for your own use.
In fact, nothing is more unfair that this ostensibly equitable tax rule. The person paying child support, however, may deduct that amount from his income. In this case there is a tax advantage to being separated as opposed to being together as a family.
However, the person who receives the amount that is intended exclusively for the children, an amount set by the court according to the children's needs, is obliged to add this amount to her taxable income. Children are the real losers, because in a two-parent family, they would have the benefit of the equivalent of the total amount.
The Regroupement des femmes de l'Abitbi-Temisca-mingue feels it is clear that, as implemented, the rule fails to measure up to its original intent, and that for this reason, the government must find a solution that is satisfactory to all concerned.


NORTHERN TAX BENEFIT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the people of Mackenzie, B.C. and other northern and remote communities in Saskatchewan and Manitoba on their campaign to see that the northern tax benefit is returned.
In Mackenzie a task force has been formed to lobby the government to have the phase-out of this program reversed and for a full return of the benefits.
It is regrettable that the Conservative government, supported by the Reform Party, is calling for the abolition of this benefit which is part of a tax fairness program, helps offset high living costs in recruiting professionals to isolated communities and has provided for some balance in the provision of government services which are often lacking in northern communities.
Petitions are being signed by hundreds of people and they are getting ready to make this an election issue. Keep up the fight for fairness, Mackenzie.
[Stage Direction]
May 6, 1993

Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a letter written by a soldier currently serving in Somalia. He said:
The general feeling over here is one of betrayal. I have seen more devastation, disease, corruption and disregard for human life than I ever thought possible! But that has changed, the Canadian soldiers serving here have given the next generation of Somalis hope, a safe place to live, the essentials to sustain life and a start in rebuilding their war-torn homeland.
We feel that we have become pawns to be played by some politicians to discredit others and further their own position. Soldiers here fear that if they must use force to protect themselves or the people we have been sent here to defend, that they will become another chess piece on the floor of the House of Commons, or be crucified by our own media, whom it appears would be happy to see young Canadian soldiers come home in body bags to get the better ratings!
To our soldiers, their wives, family and friends, I am proud of our peacekeepers. The actions of a few individuals, still to be determined, must not be allowed to overshadow the pride we have in our soldiers and their efforts and achievements.


STUDENTS
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, for nine long years this government has been chopping away at programs and transfer payments that have increased the cost of a post-secondary education. At the same time it has consistently reduced annual funding for student summer employment programs.
Now Canada's students are forced to pay sharply increased tuition fees while the number of summer job opportunities continues to dwindle.
While the leadership candidates are delivering fancy slogans like "We Must Invest in our Young People" and "The Future is Everything" this Tory government sits here content in undermining the ability of our young people to forge ahead.
Canada is a proud democratic nation. This government's record on education has been nothing short of abysmal. It is time for change: change that will restore hope for Canada's young people in their educational system; change that will bring Canada back to the
forefront in educational standards; and change that will once again give Canada's young people a chance for higher learning and a chance to create jobs and build the industry of tomorrow.


RUSALKA DANCE ENSEMBLE
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, it has been 30 years since the humble beginning of the Rusalka Dance Ensemble in Winnipeg.
Ukrainian dance is a very demanding art form. The intense concentration and precision as well as the expressiveness of the performers transport the viewers far beyond the boundaries of who they are to the ranges of where they might dream to be.
The Rusalka Dance Ensemble has over the past 30 years come to represent the overwhelming contributions made by Ukrainian settlers to the great nation of Canada. They came to Canada and became part of Canada, enriching this nation with great strength and commitment.
Ukrainian dance has travelled a long way from the steppes of the Ukraine to the prairies of Canada. Rusalka Dance Ensemble has fostered its links with the past and its enthusiasm for the future through gala concerts and performances that are as spectacular as they are exciting.
The Rusalka Dance Ensemble has become a preeminent ambassador for Canada throughout the world. Recognition of its achievements in its 30th year is well deserved.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, every year since 1990 the Minister of Finance has given us budget forecasts for 1992-93. In his 1990 budget he predicted a deficit of $21 billion for 1993; in 1991, he predicted a deficit of $24 billion and in 1992 his forecast was up to $27.5 billion. Now it is up to $35.5 billion.
On the evidence, we can say that the weatherman is better at making forecasts than the Minister of Finance.
I do not see why we should trust the minister's latest predictions. The evidence is there: federalism is not
May 6, 1993

worth it. It is getting Quebec into debt to the tune of seven or eight billion dollars annually.
That is why we want sovereignty for Quebec, and we want it as soon as possible.


AGRICULTURE
Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw attention to a problem faced by snap bean growers in the Fraser Valley.
Over the last few years growers have experienced increasing losses due to white and grey mould infestations. These losses account for 25 per cent of the snap bean crop, with direct losses of $250,000 to the growers and over $1 million to the processors.
Growers in the U.S. can use the pesticide Ronalin D.F., which controls this type of infestation, while Canadian growers cannot. As a result Canadian growers cannot compete and will be out of business, losing $1 million to $2 million as well as taking 1,400 to 1,700 acres out of production.
Canadian processors will stop processing beans or process them in the U.S., using beans treated with the same chemical banned in Canada. This would result in an annual loss of $4 million to $7 million to British Columbia processors.
I would urgently request that the Departments of Agriculture and National Health and Welfare get together and resolve this problem as soon as possible. Planting and care for crops is governed by nature and hard work, not by a bureaucracy.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, this do-nothing government lives up to its name when it comes to the disastrous state of the Canadian airline industry. Our airlines are engaged in destructive rather than healthy competition and both national carriers are generating huge losses.
The government's neglect of the airline industry has guaranteed that Canadians will pay the price for the lack
of service in this key transportation sector. Sudbury and other northern Ontario communities have already experienced the fall-out from airline deregulation: the cancellation of jet service, an increase in the use of small turbo prop aircraft, and the horrendous increase in air fares, the result of which has taken air travel out of the reach of ordinary Canadians.
Liberals believe that a Canadian airline industry should be competitive, Canadian controlled and provide safe and accessible air transportation services. A Liberal government would take corrective measures if any of these conditions did not exist.
Reliable air service is crucial for the economic development of all regions, including northern Ontario. I urge this government to take action now.


PEACEKEEPING IN BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, our troops assigned to peacekeeping activities in the former Yugoslavia risk their lives each day. They deserve our support and the support of all Canadians.
The Prime Minister is in Europe today to consult with the heads of state of countries allied with Canada on the explosive situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
The Prime Minister's consultations with our European allies are aimed at maximizing the safety of our troops, so that they can carry out their tasks under the mandate we received from the United Nations.


PHARMACEUTICALS
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, at the legislative committee hearings on the North American free trade agreement yesterday the generic Canadian Drug Manufacturers' Association presented a legal opinion which demonstrated that NAFTA does not require that our generic drug legislation be repealed. This is the exact opposite of what the Minister for International Tirade has said from day one in defending Bill C-91.

May 6, 1993
If NAFTA does not require us to do away with generic drugs, then why has the Conservative government done it? The answer is that the U.S. government and the multinational drug companies consistently pressed until they found a Canadian government that would eliminate economical generic drugs in Canada and protect monopoly drug profits.
What about the next government? Canadians will want to know which of the opposition parties will guarantee the restoration of generic drugs. New Democrats make this commitment.
We have not heard from the Liberal Party, but its consumer affairs critic was reported in The Vancouver Sun of December 4 as saying that a Liberal government would not likely repeal Bill C-91.
Canadians already wonder if the Liberals really oppose medicare user fees. Do the Liberals really favour generic drugs? Stay tuned, and now over to you Jean.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, this country has two official languages. We have had an Official Languages Act for 25 years, as well as a Commissioner of Official Languages who acts as an ombudsman and monitors compliance with the act.
Today in 1993 there are still service agencies, national transportation agencies such as VIA Rail and Air Canada, that refuse to recognize the well-founded right of every Canadian to be served by these institutions in his own language, in other words, in English or in French.
When the commissioner of official languages tells us he has to take VIA Rail to court for its refusal to comply with the legislation, all Canadians should complain about this fact. Air Canada, which refuses to make its security announcements in both official languages, is also at fault. It is time this was stopped.
I would like to hear from the Tory leadership candidates, the former chairmen of the official languages committee, the member for Edmonton Southwest and the member for Halton-Peel, chairman of the official languages committee, what they intend to do to ensure
compliance with the Official Languages Act across this country.


FORESTRY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, this week Canadians are celebrating National Forest Week. All across our country people are reflecting on the importance of our forests to our livelihood, our environment and our planet.
The theme, Our Common Ground, well illustrates the spirit of partnership so essential to our forest community. The concept of partnership was also reflected in the agreement that was recently signed by the federal Department of Forestry and the partners in New Brunswick of the Fundy model forest.
It includes industry, wood producers, local schools, municipal authorities and conservation groups. They will be working closely together to implement a sustainable management plan for a unique 400,000 hectare area in our province.
New Brunswick ranks second only to British Columbia in terms of the importance of forestry to the province's economy. I would like to pay tribute to the skill and dedication of the 13,000 people who work directly in our province's forest sector and I would like to thank them for their contribution to our prosperity and our future.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the conflict of interest bill is dead.
Earlier this week, the chairman of the special joint committee on conflict of interest wrote to members of the committee of both Houses informing us that the proposed conflict of interest act was no more.
The bill does not function as it is and the government House leader, on behalf of the government, refused to make the changes to make it work.
Canadians will have to ask themselves, why are Conservatives against having a conflict of interest act? Five times the Conservatives have introduced a conflict of interest bill. For the fifth time this bill will die. No
May 6, 1993

matter which Tory is in power, a Tory is a Tory is a Tory and they are not concerned with ethics. The proof is in the pudding.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, this morning I introduced a private member's bill to amend the Criminal Code.
This bill will make breach of any condition of parole or statutory release a criminal offence. Currently if someone breaches a condition of their parole that does not amount to a criminal offence. The Parole Board must be notified for a warrant to be issued for the arrest of that person.
With the amendment I am proposing, a police officer could act immediately to arrest an individual who is breaching any parole condition. This amendment will speed up police response times, especially when combined with the changes we are anticipating to the police computer system this summer.
These changes will give officers fast access to parole conditions. Quick response time is vital to community safety. Had this amendment already been in place, Kittye Schmidt and Ezio Faraone might still be alive. Both were victims of parolees who had breached parole conditions or were still on the loose. This bill will ensure that parole conditions actually mean something. I urge all members of the House to support this bill.


COMPOSTING INDUSTRY
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to mention a dynamic company in the composting industry.
Biomax Inc. offers composting processes based on performance monitoring according to well-defined criteria.
Besides offering a quality product, this organic-waste management company promotes and sells its own products and services, which accounts for its rapid growth in recent years.
Oral Questions
Hence Biomax's main focus on research. American composting practices were found to be less and less appropriate in Quebec because of our climate.
I salute the initiative of a company from our area which is focusing on protecting and enhancing our environment.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

["Mr. Speaker, I can fully appreciate the member's concern for the safety of mariners. I can assure you that as we move along to examine the feasibility of privatizing the search and rescue operations that as usual in Transport Canada safety will be of the utmost importance. We will put in place the safeguards to ensure that we protect that safety."]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
This morning United States President Clinton said the time for talk in Bosnia is over and he called for tougher measures through a unified collective action to stop the killing. The United Nations Security Council is meeting right now as we speak to consider brand new proposals. This raises serious questions for Canada, perhaps the most serious we have faced since the Korean war.
Is the government considering involvement in tougher military measures being proposed by the Americans? What does this mean for the security of our Canadians? We all need to have these answers and we need to have them now.
Will the Prime Minister immediately return to this country from his foreign tour and present to this House the government's position on these vital issues so that consent can be attained from Parliament on decisions that will have life and death consequences for our troops? We are tired of four-second clips from abroad. We need the answers here in Parliament.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, along with most other people in the world, I share the hon. member's concern about the turndown by the so-called Parliament of the Bosnian Serbs of the Vance-Owen peace plan and along with everybody else share concerns about what that might lead to.
I do not think it is helpful to use the kind of language the hon. member used. It is histrionics. He should appreciate the fact of how important the visit going on today between the Prime Minister and President Yeltsin is because Russia, as one of the members of the P-5, has a veto over Security Council actions and having an agreement or discussing the issues in Bosnia with Presi-

Oral Questions
dent Yeltsin is probably one of the most significant things the Prime Minister could be doing. That alone makes the trip an important and useful trip.
Canada, as we always have, will continue to look for an international solution and will continue to be helpful in terms of the discussions and negotiations going on in the UN and elsewhere. In terms of our troops, as the Prime Minister has said, the safety of Canadian troops is foremost in our minds.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. minister that the most significant discussion the Prime Minister can have is with the Canadian people. They must be the ones who make decisions about the commitment of our troops.
If he has to talk to the Russian Prime Minister he can use a telephone. He can use the secret line, as the defence minister says she does all the time.

President Clinton says that tougher unified action is necessary. Our Canadian forces are exposed and, unfortunately, we are not getting complete information from the government.
I again ask the minister whether we support President Clinton's position. What is the situation of our forces?
I again ask the Prime Minister to return immediately to present Canada's position to Parliament before any decisions are made.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said, we along with all of the countries that have troops in Yugoslavia are very concerned certainly about the circumstance of the troops and the peace and also concerned about any action taken of a military nature, what effect that would have on our troops and the desire to seek a permanent solution. Discussions are going on. Various alternatives are being suggested.
For the hon. member to suggest that all of those discussions be dropped, that conversations between the
Prime Minister and important world leaders like Yeltsin, Kohl, Mitterrand and Major in fact are trivial compared to coming in the House and listening a speech from the hon. member on this subject is absurd.
The Government of Canada will conduct itself properly. Our concern is for the troops. In this instance, as we always have in the past, we will work with the United Nations and other international partners to seek the best solution possible.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to the hon. minister I have the utmost respect for this Parliament and the right of the Canadian people to have a voice and be heard through this Parliament.
Let me give an example of the kind of confusion that reigns in this government. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was reported this morning to have said that we will be offering more troops to go to Bosnia, but the parliamentary secretary to the House leader says we should pull out of Bosnia. The minister of defence said yesterday we do not have enough troops to go to Bosnia but we will send our aeroplanes.
I ask the minister or the Deputy Prime Minister: which is it? Are we going to send more ground troops or are we going to pull out? Are we going to participate in air strikes, as the defence minister seems to suggest? Is it not true and is it not the utmost common sense that at this crucial time affecting Canadians and our troops that the place of the Prime Minister is in Parliament and Parliament must have the right to decide before any decisions are taken to commit further troops or put our troops at further risk?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the tone, the language, the accusatory words used by the hon. member put a lie to any suggestion that reasonable debate and discussion could occur here, not as long as the hon. member uses that tactic in terms of this important subject.
Just to correct the record, what the Prime Minister said in respect of further troops was: "Obviously Canada has responded in the past and would carefully examine
May 6, 1993

any request for further assistance from the Secretary General." That is what the Prime Minister said.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member sits there, says he asked a serious question and yet he barracks from his seat and says please treat us seriously, we deserve it. The hon. member has to earn that seriousness and he does not do it by the behaviour he is exemplifying here.


Don Boudria: That is disrespectful of democracy.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: You've got to earn it.


Lloyd Axworthy: I said your minister of external affairs.


Mr. Crosbie:: Use an opposition day.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, the peace operation in Bosnia is at a very critical point. Concern is continuing to rise in the country regarding our participation because there are many warning signals and no debate. The latest of these is an expression of concern for the safety of our troops by the Canadian forces commander in Bosnia.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. What is the mandate of our troops in Bosnia and what is the government plan for our 2,400 troops there in the event of a western air strike?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is postulating that a western air strike is something imminent and will occur. No such thing.
Discussions are going on in terms of that option and other options in view of the very, very unfortunate result in the so-called Bosnian Serbian Parliament.
Reality is that what we all want is a cessation of the hostilities, the stopping of this vicious ethnic cleansing and the atrocities that are occurring. Canada is there under the UN auspices doing our best in terms of providing humanitarian aid to the refugees and to try and effect the cease-fire in places like Srebrenica and so on.
Oral Questions
We continue to engage in discussions with our allies. That is what the Prime Minister is doing, that is what the Secretary of State for External Affairs is doing, that is what the Department of External Affairs is doing and our ambassadorial staff in the various capitals.
Hopefully from this and discussions a plan will arise that is workable. Hopefully the Bosnian Serbs will come to realize their current posture is simply unsustainable and will lead to horrendous damage to themselves as well as to others and we will find a solution.
In the meantime, Canada's first priority is to make sure our troops are not put at undue risk and that they are well equipped for that. As events develop in the hours and days and weeks ahead we will respond accordingly.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, we have to be the only country in the world that would have put our troops in the line of fire in a foreign country without as much as a word of debate in Parliament.
With the three key ministers, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence, removed from the show, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Who in Canada is in political charge of this sensitive operation at this critical time? Who has the total picture? Will the Deputy Prime Minister initiate an immediate debate in Parliament on one of the most important issues in the history of this country?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, last week there was an opposition day on this subject. I think it was exactly a week ago today. The lead speaker for the Liberal Party gave a loud, boisterous and accusatory speech and then left the Chamber never to come back.
If the hon. member is suggesting that that kind of thing is helpful to our troops and if we believed that kind of thing would be helpful to peace in Yugoslavia and to the security of our forces there, we would certainly engage in it immediately.
In the meantime, as the Prime Minister has said, we are not fundamentally opposed to a rational, sane, objective discussion of the issues there, but in fact there has never been any evidence from the other side that

May 6, 1993
Oral Questions
they are interested in anything else but trying to tarnish the reputation of this government.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, what would be helpful not only to this House but to Canadians would be to have a Minister of National Defence who is prepared to stand up and be accountable in this Parliament instead of campaigning across the country for the leadership.


Mr. Beatty:: She was in committee yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we might remind ourselves that we have a long-standing rule that we do not refer to the absence of any particular member in the House. I would just ask both sides of the House to respect it.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I was merely taking my direction from the government House leader on this one.
Yesterday, in the wake of the tragic decision of the Bosnian Serb Parliament to reject the Vance-Owen peace plan, U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher said: "Our focus will be very sharp on new and stronger measures." We know that those measures may include air strikes and the lifting of the embargo on the Muslims in Bosnia.
Given the profound significance of either of these steps for the safety of Canadian troops, precisely what is the response of Canada to these developments, and specifically what are the contingency plans that the minister referred to yesterday in the House in the event that the peace plan has broken down?
It has broken down at this point, and Canadians are entitled to know what our response is to protect the safety of Canadian forces?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the hon. member's preamble we do not take attendance around here, but I think the Minister of National Defence has been here more often than he has.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: In terms of the options available-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if on both sides of the House we could just leave that aspect of the debate to some other place and get on with the questions and the answers. We know what the rule is.


Harvie Andre: As the Minister of National Defence, myself, the Prime Minister and others have said on many occasions, the Canadian forces in Yugoslavia have contingency plans in place that will permit them to protect themselves in the event hostilities take an unfortunate turn.
With regard to proposals being put forward by the Secretary of State of the United States, those proposals and others are under active discussion at the UN between the Prime Minister and President Yeltsin, between other leaders of the western world and indeed leaders all over the world.
The final position that might be taken by the UN is not known. It is not known to the UN itself. Canada is making sure that its views are being heard at the important places where they should be heard. When in fact a decision has been taken one can anticipate that Canada, as it always has in the past, will act in concert with the rest of the world through the United Nations. Hopefully those plans will lead to the kind of lasting peace and at least in the short term the cessation of hostilities in Yugoslavia which we are all after.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister says Canada's views are being made known in the appropriate place. Surely the families of Canadian troops in Bosnia, Canadian troops themselves, and most importantly Canadians, have a right to answers to those questions in Parliament and not behind closed doors somewhere. We still do not know what the position of the Canadian government is on these issues.
Yesterday the Bosnian Serb information minister said that the Americans were only bluffing about military action and they would never intervene. Given that there is a crisis under way now, that there is no water in Srebrenica, that the towns of Zepa and Goradze are under siege even as we speak, I want to ask this government if we are prepared to show some leadership and at the very least call within the United Nations for the establishment of safe havens and humanitarian corridors to prevent the kind of ethnic cleansing which has been taking place in Bosnia. Will we finally put some
May 6, 1993

teeth into our call for bringing these war criminals to justice?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, we have been calling for actions along those lines for months and months and months. That is what the Canadian troops are there for; that is what they are trying to do in Srebrenica.
I agree with the hon. member. It is most disturbing that the so-called Bosnian Serb Parliament has taken that position. I believe they are wrong, hopefully not but perhaps tragically wrong, in their assertion that the rest of the world lacks the will to take the necessary action to stop the atrocities from going on there. That is a very dangerous position for them to take.
In the meantime I think the hon. member would realize that the most prudent position for the Government of Canada is to continue to discuss with our allies various alternatives. If Canada as the hon. member suggests should come out with its position, every other country would have the same right. How would that aid in bringing about the kind of resolution to this problem we all want to see?


Svend Johannes Robinson: My final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is for the same minister.
Certainly we agree that Canadians have a right to be consulted. In light of that I want to ask this minister- and I will not comment on the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The House knows perfectly well why we have a rule that we do not make comments about members who may not be in their seats at any given time. The reason for it is that members and ministers have many things to do and cannot always be here.
I have asked both sides of the House to respect that. We are not advancing what is essentially a very serious series of questions and answers by constantly making reference and breaking a rule that we all know is there.
Oral Questions
I hope the hon. member will take that into account and put his question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade is surely entitled to basic facts about what is happening in Bosnia.
This morning the standing committee unanimously voted to report to the House that the Department of External Affairs was in contempt of Parliament if it did not make briefings available to members of that standing committee.
What does the government have to hide? Why is it not prepared to ensure that members of Parliament on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade are given the basic facts about the role and the safety of Canadian troops in Bosnia?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to hide and there is no reason to raise undue concerns about the safety of our troops in Bosnia.
We can be sure that the professionals in the Department of National Defence-Canada has more experience in this kind of thing than any other country in the world-have the plans in place to ensure that our troops are not put at undue risk.
In terms of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, the minister is in Croatia today. She has been in Bosnia. She will be going on to Somalia and coming back to Canada. As indicated she will be prepared to appear before the committee next week and to answer any and all questions the hon. member and other members might have.



Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's tabling of the Department of National Defence report on sexual harassment confirmed that 26.2 per cent of women in the forces had experienced some sort of sexual harassment. Also it confirmed that too few of those harassed were using the complaint procedure.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Could he tell us what in this new report will encourage these people to come forward and actually use the complaint procedures?

May 6, 1993
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence has recommended as a result of the report three significant changes.
There will be an appointment of an harassment adviser. There will be a change to the Queen's regulations to allow for an adviser to assist the complainant both during the complaint and the investigation stages. There will be a reporting system. A tracking system will be implemented to monitor and record the number of complaints made by members of the forces.
They will be implementing a program of education and training to raise the awareness and really teach some people exactly what harassment is and why it is of such serious concern.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. House leader for his answer. I would be happier if it were not for the fact that these kinds of recommendations mirror quite closely the Treasury Board guidelines that have been in place with this government for some time.
The problem is the Treasury Board guidelines similar to these are not being enforced. Transgressors in the Public Service of Canada are not being disciplined.
My question therefore is for the Acting Prime Minister. Again what measures will he take to ensure that all those who report cases of harassment will be taken seriously and that those very guidelines and rules he is talking about are going to be enforced? We have no reason to think so thus far.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, since the report was just released yesterday and the Department of National Defence only had it a day or two before that I guess these are the changes it has put in place.
It is a bit unfair, having put in these changes in terms of National Defence and having indicated they would take the problem seriously, for the hon. member to conclude it is all a charade and that National Defence does not intend to have these measures work.
I do not think the hon. member has any evidence to justify that in terms of the Department of National Defence. She should wait and see and be objective in her assessment.


HOUSING
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, currently there are 1.2 million Canadians living in inadequate shelter. CMHC's own corporate plan has concluded that economic hardships will cause a growing number of Canadians to live in inadequate housing. With continual lay-offs across the country these problems are felt in an increasing way by major urban centres in Canada: Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal, Toronto and Halifax.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance why this government is abandoning its federal-provincial obligation to provide equal access to affordable housing across Canada.

Why is this government abandoning the poor who need social housing?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this government is not abandoning the poor.
We are supporting 650,000 units of social housing at an annual cost of some $2 billion. Under the 35-year subsidy program that has been in existence it creates a tremendous cost exposure on the future taxpayers of Canada.
For example, for the $41 million that will be invested in social housing this year, when that is paid out over a 35-year period it will impose a $1.3 billion burden on the future taxpayers of Canada.
What we have outlined in the budget are new approaches and new ways and means to deal with the social housing issue which can be done on a more affordable basis.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, the minister might say what he wants but the facts speak for themselves.
May 6, 1993

Last year he killed co-op housing. This year he killed new funding for any social housing altogether. This effectively shelves the cost sharing federal-provincial programs that include housing for seniors and the disabled, RRAP and the emergency repair program.
How can the government justify cancelling these programs without first instituting cost efficient housing alternatives? There are many, and we have proposed many such as public private partnerships.
When will the government bring all the stakeholders to the table for a national housing policy and a national housing program so we can all work together to house Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would hope this would be one of the subjects that could be discussed at the federal-provincial level when finance ministers meet to deal with the challenges of the deficit and the debt, the burden that imposes upon all Canadians, and to organize in a co-operative way practical solutions to deal with the problem.
This is an area that is clearly of joint responsibility. I have to remind the hon. member in terms of providing housing with respect to the aboriginal people on reserves, the disabled and those responsible for violence against women, that those provisions will still be provided under the social housing program.
We all have to recognize that while we are very supportive and indeed want to enhance all our social programs, we have a very serious debt and deficit problem which we have to handle and manage. I hope my hon. friend understands that. We are going to try to do the best we can in managing the resources that are available and trying to get more value and benefit from those scarce resources.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we have just received the decision from the United States on the softwood lumber tariff dispute.
It seems this dispute goes on and on. The ruling today sends the decision back to the commerce department to
Oral Questions
report back again in 90 days and to continue the harassment of Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United States.
What specific steps are the minister and the government going to take to ensure that Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United States will not continually be harassed as this decision does? It just puts off resolving this matter for another 90 days.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am really quite surprised at the tone of my hon. friend's question.
What we have in the decision from the softwood panel is one that is very positive for Canada. Yes, there is a remand, a referral back to the International Trade Commission in the United States on a number of issues, practically all the issues.
However, I would say to my hon. friend the arguments put forward by Canada and other Canadian interveners were largely accepted by the panel, and this is a positive thing. I should call something to my friend's attention since he chooses to ignore it.
We would not have had the opportunity of putting these arguments if we had not had the free trade agreement. It is because of the free trade agreement that we had this opportunity to put our case forward and get a positive response for Canada.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary for the minister is this.
Given that the U.S. lumber coalition and other authorities in the United Stated have already indicated they intend to launch an extraordinary challenge of this decision, to keep the fight going for the United States, can the minister tell the House if he has assurances from the new administration in Washington that President Clinton will drop this tariff dispute now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the reason I was somewhat late coming into the House for Question Period was that I had just received the decision. I have not had a chance to discuss it in any way with members of the United States administration.

May 6, 1993
Oral Questions
I can tell my hon. friend that I had raised the matter with the administration prior to the decision. I pointed out to them that in the face of this constraint on exports of Canadian softwood lumber to the United States, the price of lumber had gone up. It has almost doubled in the last year and a half. There has been no new production of any substance in the United States. In fact, some of the environmental concerns that are held in the United States are constraining production there.
I have pointed out very strongly that it is in the interests of the United States' economy to drop this and I would encourage them to do so.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for International Trade.
Last Friday another Ontario manufacturing plant announced its closure. The most productive Mack truck plant in North America is closing its doors and two ministers in this House said it had absolutely nothing to do with the free trade agreement.
I have in my hand a copy of the free trade agreement. In the free trade agreement, item 8701.20.00, the Conservative government abolished the duty of 9.2 per cent on road tractors for semi-trailers, allowing Mack truck to bring their trailers into Canada duty free.
How can the ministers continue to claim in the House that these jobs are not being lost as a result of free trade when their own free trade agreement has given an open door policy to Mack truck to come into Canada with no duties?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not happy when I see a factory like Mack truck or others scaling back or shutting down their operations.
I think my hon. friend should take a broader view, if that is possible, and look at some of the successes we have had under the free trade agreement. Last year for example, our exports were up 13.6 per cent in a year of a slow economy. Just to give my friend some broader numbers, Alberta's exports to the United States since
the free trade agreement came in are up 52 per cent; Saskatchewan's are up 44 per cent; Ontario up-


Mr. Kilgour:: She's from Ontario.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If my hon. friend would listen, I would tell him what has happened in Ontario. Exports are up 29 per cent.


David Kilgour: Tell us about Mack trucks.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend says when I give him the good news he says he wants to talk about something else. Let us look at-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, supplementary.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my supplementary to the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization who is spreading other misinformation around the House about the availability of jobs in Oakville at the Ford plant.


Mr. McDermid:: Because of the re-tooling.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The minister responsible for revenue who is allowing these trucks to go through duty free stated last week to those who lost jobs at Mack truck: "You lose some, you win some. They are hiring now at Ford as a result of a $1 billion investment. They are hiring right now. Why don't you tell the Mack truck workers to go and look for jobs at Ford?"
Minutes ago I spoke to the labour management at Ford. Not only is it not hiring but it has 500 people at Ford on lay-off.
Why is the minister of revenue spreading misinformation and telling Mack truck workers, who have just had the door slammed in their face, that they can go down the street to Ford when Ford is also on lay-off? Why are you giving up on the workers of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, no one is giving up on the workers of Canada. The free trade agreement is helping the workers of Canada.
Let me give my hon. friend one specific example. Does she not accept the fact that the reason there have been problems with Ford right now is because the plant is in transition in retooling for the billion dollar investment that Ford has made in Oakville. There is another billion dollar investment by Ford in Windsor.
May 6, 1993

Right across the street, Lear seating has opened a new plant completely, creating 650 direct and indirect new jobs simply to supply that Ford investment. This is an example of where the investment by Ford has created the opportunity for investments by others. With Lear seating, 650 is quite a bit larger than what has resulted from the lay-offs at Mack.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who must know that the unemployment rate among Canadian youth jumped to nearly 18 per cent last month. Another 28,000 young Canadians are out there loafing around as a result of this government's brutal policies.
In Newfoundland alone, youth unemployment skyrocketed last month from 31 per cent to 38 per cent.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance why there was not something in last week's budget to deal with this job crisis and to get those young people working?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think young Canadians as well as all Canadians are deeply concerned about the debt and the deficit problem. At least when I travel across the country it is a matter they are increasingly concerned about because ultimately the responsibility will rest on their shoulders.
We have to be realistic in reducing government expenditures while at the same time bolstering economic growth, creating new jobs and new economic activity, and taking advantage of the opportunities that occur as a result of the newly emerging economy.
The hon. member is very clearly aware that in the December statement we took initiatives to stimulate the small business sector, to invest in more training and skills upgrading programs, and to invest in infrastructure.
Through the very hard work and the untiring efforts of the minister of fisheries, he has been very instrumental in helping meet the very serious crises in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and in other Atlantic-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we must move on. The hon. member, a supplemental.
Oral Questions


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that those young people are also concerned about their education and about careers. That is where his policies are failing those people, failing an entire generation absolutely and shamelessly.
Since 1985, for example, funding for the Challenge program, the SEED program, has been axed by more than 50 per cent. Student jobs have been wiped out right, left and centre by this minister. Education opportunities have disappeared because the government has been tampering with the student loan policy and the transfer payments to provinces.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance, why does the government not stop this vicious attack on young people and start giving them a break on their education and on their search for jobs.


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond concerning the Challenge '93 program. The fact of the matter is that there has been an increase of $5.1 million in the funding for youth employment in Challenge '93 for this year. As well, over 400 youth employment centres have been established. We are very pleased that so many employers are assisting in helping youth.
Besides the government assisting youth employment, a number of private sector, public sector and non-profit groups are helping with the Challenge '93 to a total of some 57,000 jobs for young people this summer. We are very pleased with that and I would expect that the member might compliment the government on this increased funding for youth.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of trade.
Yesterday in the legislative committee on NAFTA the assistant deputy attorney general told the committee that GATT tariff item 2201, which is ordinary natural waters of all kinds other than sea water, is included in the NAFTA agreement as a commodity of trade. He also acknowledged there is no exclusive provision in the agreement to exempt the large scale export of water as a commodity of trade.

May 6, 1993
Oral Questions
I would like to ask the Minister for International Trade this. He managed to get specific exemptions for the export of raw logs. He managed to get specific exemptions for the export of unprocessed fish. Why has he failed to get specific exemptions for the bulk export of Canadian waters?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this one keeps going on and on. The New Democratic Party does not accept it is a simple fact of Canadian government policy that we will not allow any exports in bulk of water.
In addition to that, it is a specific part of the legislation for both the free trade agreement and the NAFTA that there will be no exports of large bodies of water.
My hon. friends in the New Democratic Party, in face of the fact that there is no desire on the part of the Americans to seek exports of water, are saying that we should negotiate something that is contrary to our legislation, contrary to our policy.
I ask them what they would put on the table to gain that? Would they put on culture, would they put on the investment restrictions, would they put on the supply management systems?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the minister has continued to hide behind both Canada's federal water policy and article 302 of NAFTA as providing sufficient protection against bulk export of water.
Yesterday in committee the deputy assistant attorney general conceded that the interpretation of our international commitments under NAFTA would take primacy, would take precedence over any domestic policy, including our federal water policy or any legislation, including the implementing legislation.
Would the minister agree that the inclusion of ordinary natural water of all kinds in NAFTA, the failure to negotiate specific exclusions for that water in NAFTA and the primacy of this international agreement over domestic policy has left-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question is there. The hon. minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is quite different from what the hon. member has just expressed.
The specific elements that are included in the NAFTA agreement are water that is in small containers-


Some hon. members:: Oh, come on.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -water that is in a tank or truck, but not large bodies of water-


Mr. Riis:: Read the transcript Mike. That's what he said. He disagrees with you, Mike.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend says that he disagrees. My hon. friend and I disagree on a lot of things and I am very proud to say that.


FOREST DEVELOPMENT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forestry.
In a letter dated today, the Regroupement des societes d'amenagement forestier du Quebec, a group of forestry companies, expressed concern about the federal budget measures with respect to the development of private forests in Quebec through the eastern Quebec development plan and the Canada-Quebec agreement on forest development.
My question is this: can the minister tell us today that in negotiations on these forestry agreements in Quebec with the Government of Quebec, these same private Quebec companies were advised by the Quebec department of forests not to accept federal money for their projects? Will he continue his efforts to maintain these programs for Quebec forests?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the forest resource development agreements which in the main funded the private woodlot entrepreneurs in the province of Quebec and other provinces are scheduled to be phased out over a period of three to four years.
I hope that provides us with sufficient time to sit down with the provinces to define a more legitimate role for the federal government, in which we can have a longer term commitment and one that would assist the private
May 6, 1993

Oral Questions
woodlot owners in their efforts to meet the objectives of our modem society.


SOMALIA
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The minister of defence has refused to make the Somalia board of inquiry public or to have it examine her own role. Whether or not this will be a whitewash remains to be seen, but it is certainly expensive. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister why the minister approved $43,000 for furniture for the inquiry, including a lobby filled with leather couches, at 100 Metcalfe Street? How can she justify these lavish expenditures at this time in the country's history? Is this right and is it justified?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, obviously we would not have that kind of detailed information. I would be very, very surprised if the Minister of National Defence is even aware of the fact. Presumably if you do set up a commission it requires staff, presumably chairs to sit at and desks to work on. I assume that is what is involved.
However, I will look into it and if there is anything more than that I will get back to the hon. member.


FLIGHT INSPECTION SERVICES
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In the budget the government announced its intention to pursue the privatization of flight inspection services with a pilot project to be undertaken in western Canada.
Coincidentally the government had received a proposal from the firm Intera of Calgary for the contract prior to the release of the budget.
Why is the Minister of Transport allowing this privatization to proceed given that he is in possession of a private consultant's report by T.H.A. Monenco which recommends against the scheme for reasons of both safety and cost-efficiency?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will not be surprised that when a project is considered, various opinions are expressed and until we have really looked into the applicability of the project, it is difficult to draw conclusions.
We think it is prudent management of public funds to have a pilot project involving partial privatization so that we can check over time and see whether it is in Canada's best interests or not before making a decision affecting the whole service.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In the budget there were provisions outlined for the possible privatization of Transport Canada's helicopter fleet. Given the fact that this helicopter fleet performs certain functions which are vital for safe marine operations in our coastal waters such as the monitoring of ice conditions, calibration of navigation aids and some search and rescue responsibilities, will the minister assure the House that he will put in place the proper safeguards to preserve safety in our coastal waters and protect human lives in the event that these services are privatized?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I can fully appreciate the member's concern for the safety of mariners. I can assure you that as we move along to examine the feasibility of privatizing the search and rescue operations that as usual in Transport Canada safety will be of the utmost importance. We will put in place the safeguards to ensure that we protect that safety.



POINT OF ORDER


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the House heard earlier from the member for Burnaby, the Standing Committee on External Affairs did have a meeting this morning. It has asked me to attempt to bring to the House at this point its 10th

May 6, 1993
Business of the House
report. Normally tablings are in the morning and it is entirely understood. I am therefore seeking the consent of the House to revert at the moment to tabling to file our report. It is entirely conceivable, if that were to succeed, that I would be seeking further consents.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the request for consent from the hon. member for Don Valley West. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not agreement.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, before I ask questions of the government House leader with regard to business, I am wondering if the Chair would take notice of the language being exchanged by members on the opposite side particularly during Standing Orders 31 and indeed during Question Period. I do not wish to get into a long harangue about it, Mr. Speaker, but I would hope that you would review the "blues" because such words as hypocrite, rat and jackass and other things are being said by members opposite.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


David Charles Dingwall: I do not know if that is individuals referring to leadership candidates or not, but I would hope that we could all take a moment to sit back and perhaps reflect upon what is being said, particularly the hon. member for Athabasca.
Having said that, I wonder if the government House leader could indicate to the House what the business will be for the remainder of the week and next week. Second, can he assure the House, or give some indication to the House, that regarding the NAFTA bill it is the intention of the government to proceed with report stage and third reading the week of May 25 or thereabouts, and if he could be somewhat more specific. Third, could the government House leader indicate to the House what the government will do in terms of the conflict of interest. Now that we have heard from the chairman of
the committee who has circulated a letter quite widely that this bill is dead, I am wondering whether the government House leader could indicate to the House in terms of the subject matter what the government intends to do with alternative legislation.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the admonition to this House by the Liberal Party's House leader about watching language and decorum, and so on. I welcome that. I think that is a good idea. I think we should be more careful in our language around this place, not just those words but in fact the tone, the screeching, the yelling, the accusatory terms. I hope he will give the same lecture to his caucus.
This afternoon we hope to complete second reading of Bill C-126, the family violence act, as well as Bill C-85, the psychoactive substances act. Tomorrow we would like to complete second reading of Bill C-123, the seized property management act and Bill C-90, the sentencing act.
On Monday we hope to complete report stage and perhaps third reading of Bill C-112, the Excise Tax Act, after which if time permits we could complete second reading of Bill C-124, the currency act.
Ibesday we will begin, if we have not done it on Monday, third reading of Bill C-112, if it is not completed Monday. After that we hope to complete second reading of Bill C-122, the Customs Tariff Textiles Act.
I will continue with discussions with hon. members in terms of the remainder of the week. At this point in time it is the intention of the government to bring forward the NAFTA legislation during the first week back after the May break, namely TUesday, May 25. If there is any change in that I will let the member know.
In terms of conflict of interest, I regret very much that we have not been able to reach an agreement. The problem is not in terms of intent. The government still very much desires to have implemented a legislative base for the conflict of interest guidelines. We had hoped that compromises of different points of view in respect of the administration could be accommodated, but that was not possible. The position the committee has taken is simply not workable constitutionally, to have the officer of Parliament they propose to have responsibility for the
May 6, 1993

conflict of interest regulations of GIC appointments. I thought we could reach an accommodation.
In view of that what I have asked officials to do is to effectively put into legislative form the conflict of interest guidelines that exist now that pertain to GIC appointments only, that is to cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries, in the hope that Parliament would in fact pass that. In respect of conflict of interest guidelines for parliamentarians other than GIC appointments we will have to leave that to future Parliaments because we are simply not able to reach a compromise at this time.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, two points, one with regard to the conflict of interest. I think it is a sad day for Parliament when the government House leader indicates that compromises cannot be made. I think the minister will know that members who have served on that committee and served with some distinction and who have done a considerable amount of work on the subject matter were unanimous in the report and it was the legislation of this Parliament that they were attempting to bring forward.
It seems that the compromises that could not be reached may be in the boardroom of the cabinet and not necessarily with the committee. I would hope that the minister would reflect very carefully on this subject matter which is important to all members of Parliament. We would hope that the government would have a change of mind and change of heart.
Second, and I address this to the government House leader while the Minister of Finance is in attendance, and I know that the government House leader is fully supportive of his colleague and his budgetary papers so we find it rather strange that the government House leader would not want to take this document forward and conclude the debate with regard to the budget.
If the minister believes, as the Minister of Finance has said, that this budget is the direction in which we as a country should go, if he is so proud of this budget why does he not bring it forward and indicate to the House when this debate will conclude on the budget?
Business of the House


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate, as we usually do on these things, that we have discussed it at our House leaders' meetings and we will discuss it there in the future.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to add to the point made by my hon. colleague, the House leader for the Official Opposition.
Leading by example is important, and we have been hearing it in people's rhetoric in the last few weeks. We have all tried to make the committee system more effective in the House. This conflict of interest committee is an example of all three parties working together and coming up with a unanimous report which now seems to be getting torpedoed by the cabinet.
I want to register my very sincere disappointment with my hon. friend because at a time when we want to encourage committees to do good work, to work hard and come to a unanimous conclusion it is unfortunate that the government now cannot bring forth legislation that reflects that unanimity.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the proposal put forward by the committee was simply not workable.
It was not that it was mean spirited, not that there were any philosophical differences. It simply was practically not workable. Therefore a compromise proposal was put forward by the government that took into account the essential elements of what the committee proposed and the government proposed in the first place. The effect of it was the same.
The committee looked at it and said it did not think that was workable. There was some validity to its arguments. Those could have been corrected. Some arguments were simply wrong in fact. There was a fundamental problem that there was simply no willingness to acknowledge in terms of the role of an officer of Parliament vis-a-vis the Governor in Council appointees.
We could not resolve that. Surely one does not have to prove again that it is the government's strong desire to have conflict of interest legislation in place. We tried. It simply was not possible in this instance. I regret that.

May 6, 1993
Business of the House
However I do not think it does any good to stand up and make wild accusations about motives and intent.
I assure the hon. member that the motives in approaching this were from the perspective of getting something in place that was workable and acceptable. We could not reach a compromise, tiy as we could. The committee's advisers were telling them one set of facts and my advisers were telling me another set of facts. We simply could not reconcile those two.
It was unacceptable to committee for it to go against what its advisers were telling it. It was unacceptable for me to go against what my advisers were telling me. I would have thought we could have reached a compromise. We could not. That is sincerely regrettable but it is not an opportunity to cast partisan slurs on anybody involved.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, before the House leader disappears I wonder if he has any further information to convey to the House as to the fate of Bill C-7, the status of the artist legislation.


Harvie Andre: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Thanks.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I am sony the government House leader has left the House. I would have liked to make a few comments on Bill C-116, since we monitored this legislation very closely.
In fact, this is the fifth version. Bill C-114 was tabled on February 24, 1988, Bill C-46 on November 9, 1989, and Bill C-43 on November 22, 1991. Now we have Bill C-116, which was referred to committee for consideration by members of this House. We in the Bloc Quebecois want to see a code of ethics, a bill that would eliminate conflicts of interest in this House.
Finally, I must say I find it intriguing that when the government wants to get a bill through the House, it imposes closure, but in this case, it is simply withdrawing the legislation. It does not want the truth to be revealed and it is taking the easy way out.


Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order on the same subject.
With my colleague, the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell, and under his leadership, I am not ashamed to say and I say so gladly since he is our party critic, I have worked on this question for many years. We have been working on this question for many months and many years. We are now approaching the end of a legislature, and they tell us it cannot be done. I want to register my disagreement, because there is still time to act on the unanimous recommendations of the committee on which we sat.
The senior officers of the House of Commons and the senior officers of the Senate appeared before the committee, and we are still convinced there is enough time, and I see my colleague, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and I want to make sure I am not making a mistake, we are still convinced that Conservative and Liberal senators, Liberal members, NDP members and Conservative members are unanimous in wanting this legislation. This is no ordinary committee. The committee tabled a report and they produced a bill. We agreed that the bill submitted to the committee did not measure up to the unanimous recommendations of a committee on the conflict of interest question. We worked very hard, without any partisan considerations, and we produced a report. We are still convinced that with some goodwill the government could table a bill.
We are convinced this is the right time, although at first I thought honesty could not be legislated. However since in these troubled times the public and the press are watching us very closely and since they believe that a bill of this kind would help restore Parliament's prestige, we decided to table legislation, and it was acceptable.
My colleague and I no longer speak on behalf of the other parties. My colleague, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and I still maintain that the time has come to have a legal expert, not for the people appointed by the Governor in Council but a legal expert who would reconcile the personal interests of members and senators. If the government wants to table a second bill for its other appointments, by all means, but we think it still has time to do that, even if time is running short, and I want to make it clear that my colleague and I are really disappointed at the way this has been handled.
May 6, 1993


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.
I do not want to negotiate with the government across the floor of the House. I only want to indicate to it briefly the continued interest and co-operation of my colleagues and I to have a bill enacted.
When expert witnesses from everywhere told us that the bill as constructed by the government would not even function where, for instance, the assets of one member were registered under one system and someone else under a different system was asked to adjudicate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We are once again on debate on Bill C-116 and if members want to pursue this elsewhere, then fine.
I think we should get to Orders of the Day.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will follow your directions but I just want to register a concern with regard to Bill C-116.
It is the government's right, as we all know in this Chamber, to do as it has done. I must say that this is a very sad day for Parliament when a unanimous report of duly elected members of Parliament who have worked hard and long with regard to a subject matter fundamental to the ethics of this particular institution has gone by the wayside because of the refusal of the government House leader to proceed with the subject matter. I suggest Mr. Speaker, that you are going to have a lot more questions in subsequent debates regarding this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I get to Orders of the Day, I have received written notice from the hon. member for Burin-St. George's that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Friday, May 7, 1993.
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence, pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(a). Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Government Orders
Pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(b), private members' hour will thus be suspended and the House will continue with the business before it prior to private members' hour.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais, that Bill C-126, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When Bill C-126 was last before the House, there were six minutes remaining in the questions and comments period following the speech of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
I will now recognize the hon. members who wish to continue questions and comments. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I was answering an excellent question from my colleague, the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.
As usual, his approach is one of co-operation and understanding. He tries to bring different parties together to resolve issues. In this case, he has asked that the different levels of government work together on measures to prevent crimes of violence in our community. I agree with him whole-heartedly. That is the only way to go if we are to deal with this horrible problem in our society.
In 1985 a U.S. study showed that for every dollar the Government of the United States spends on crime prevention the return is approximately $4.75. That is a five-fold return on investment in the area of prevention and I suggest it is no different here in Canada.
Last year the cost of crime to our society was in excess of $12 billion to $14 billion. That is a great sum of money that is wasted. When we look at the causes of violence and crime in our society, it always brings us back to the same question. It is the question of education. Many of

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
those people who get themselves in trouble unfortunately are illiterate or functionally illiterate and this is where our society has a role to play.
I want to commend my colleague for his question. I want to say that the government can do a lot of things in the area of prevention. One of the things we have proposed in the House is the banning of crossbows. As I mentioned earlier in my discussion, there was a crime in the Ottawa region where an ex-husband of one of our constituents used a crossbow to commit his crime.
Just a few months ago, another crime was committed in Vancouver with the use of a crossbow. There is a bill before Parliament. The former Minister of Justice, the present Minister of National Defence, has indicated she is interested in looking at the whole question. She was expecting to get a report on the matter. We have not seen the result of that study or the report.
As we introduce stiffer laws and penalties when it comes to gun control we are going to see people shifting to other types of weapons. In this case it was a crossbow.
Anybody can walk off the street, go into a store and buy a crossbow without having to have a licence or knowing how to use it. This is the most devastating piece of equipment one could ever think of. I would ask the government to look at the issue and see whether something can be done in this area.
I want to thank my colleague for his question. I whole-heartedly agree with him.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise as justice critic for the federal New Democratic Party to speak on Bill C-126.
We have already heard an eloquent speech this morning from my colleague, the member for New Westminster-Burnaby. I am going to make some references to some of the things she said in her speech.
Let me say right away that we in the New Democratic Party will support this bill. We would like to see the bill passed before Parliament dissolves for the next election. We regret that the government did not bring this bill forward sooner.
This bill in many ways is in response to the private member's bill and the pressure that has been brought by
the member for New Westminster-Burnaby, various people in the women's movement in Canada and other people who want to see this bill passed.
We want to see the bill passed too. We are going to press that it go to committee this afternoon, we get some hearings in committee but we get it back in the House and try to pass it before Parliament breaks.
The bill deals with two real aspects. The first aspect is family violence and violence against women. The bill makes stalking a new crime of criminal harassment. It will be punishable by up to five years in prison.
In the second part of the bill, if a woman flees an abusive partner and takes her children with her she cannot be found guilty of child abduction even if the children are not in direct danger.
The third part of the first section of the bill says that before a man charged with assaulting his partner can be released on bail the judge will have to consider imposing a condition that he not return to the family home or other place or communicate with the victim or other witnesses.
We heard the member for New Westminister-Burnaby today give detail upon detail of instances where women have been harassed and indeed terrorized. As I said this morning, I started my career as a Crown attorney in Vancouver and I recall the difficulties we had with the law with respect to threats and some of the attitudes there such as: "These women are just complaining. They will not charge these fellows anyway. You will never convict them," and so on.
The fact is that in murder cases, especially for women, the murderer is likely to be the partner or ex-partner of the woman. There was a terrifying case in my own riding in Coquitlam, which is a suburb of Vancouver. A woman called Alexandra Pesic worked in a medical office. She was allegedly being harassed by her ex-husband, but she definitely was being harassed. She complained and nothing happened. Then she was brutally killed right on Cottonwood Avenue in Coquitlam. The whole community realized that an instance of harassment and terrorizing had ended in the worst possible circumstances.
Most women, thank God, are not killed in these circumstances, but many women are harassed and terrorized. When love turns to hate it often has strange consequences.
May 6, 1993

As I said, we regret that this bill was not brought forward sooner. I will just quote from a recent editorial in The Victoria Times-Colonist. It reads:
The timing is terrible, the political sincerity is suspect, the drafting
is sloppy and the efficacy dubious.
If Blais was so anxious to see this bill become law, why did he delay
its introduction so long? He first mentioned it in early February.
There was a similar article in The Edmonton Sun which questions the purposes of the government. It reads:
A cynic might say this is pure political bluster.
The thought is out there that while the government is bringing this in at the last moment it is not really serious. We want to make the government serious. All parties in the House want to make the government serious and we want to see this bill passed.
There are other parts to the bill as well. The bill also deals with child abuse. I would have liked to have seen the bill split. The first part deals with family violence. We could get on with that and do it now and the stalking bill. We could then come back and do a better job, in my view, than the bill does with the child abuse aspects because it is long overdue that we deal with this. As a matter of fact the justice committee right now as I speak is doing a review of sexual assault and of course some of it is in this bill. That is not a very good way to proceed is it?
Let me talk a little bit about what the bill proposes to do. On child abuse, people convicted of sex crimes against children could face up to a lifetime ban from going near day care centres, school yards, playgrounds, parks or bathing areas where children are likely to be found. They would also be prohibited from seeking or obtaining employment that involves a position of trust or authority over children.
The bill also mentions that children who testify in cases of sexual abuse or violence would be allowed to have a support person such as a relative or friend close to them to ease the court experience. Some judges now permit this informally, but it in fact will be put directly into the law.
I have just put my hands on one of the transcripts from the justice committee hearing the other day. Monica Rainey who is with a group from British Columbia called Citizens Against Child Exploitation is one of the people who took 5,000 teddy bears to the steps of the Victoria
Government Orders
legislature as a protest about the 10 per cent of children in B.C. who are sex abuse victims. This is a serious matter. Society is now taking it seriously. Where children are sexually abused as young kids, often in the family or people associated with the family, they often go on to be perpetrators of sexual abuse.
Monica said this, and I think it is worth quoting and bringing before the House: "Would you be moved by the story of the little Alberta girl who was not allowed to testify on her own behalf? She was six years of age. This was just this past year. The judge wanted her to pronounce a word to signify that she was qualified to testify in court. She stuttered so badly she could not say the word he wanted her to say. Therefore she was denied the opportunity to speak on her own behalf." It goes on: "Her mother said that the reason she stuttered so badly is because her father performed oral sex on her since she was an infant." Thankfully in this case the Crown proceeded even though the man was acquitted. They have been granted a second trial where hopefully she will have the opportunity to speak. The law clarifies this.
There are terrible cases and terrible incidents. It is just amazing that these things are happening in this country and the law has to deal with them. This bill proposes to do that.
The bill also states that a judge would be allowed to prevent people who represent themselves, that is without a lawyer, from cross-examining the victims of child sexual abuse. The judge would be able to appoint counsel to do the questioning in order to be sensitive to the questioning of the particular people who after all are victims testifying at a trial. Judges would not have to warn jurors about the dangers of convicting a person based on the testimony of children that is not corroborated by their evidence. The child's evidence would be evaluated in the same way as that of the adults. These are interesting and important propositions that do need some detailed study.
We agree with the thrust of these propositions but I think they need some detailed study in committee. Now is not the time to do that when Parliament is dying and when we already have another part of the bill that we are dealing with and the justice committee is looking at the matter of child abuse right now. I would prefer that we

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
come back and get a really decent, workable bill on child abuse, but we keep the pressure up on that.
What I would like to see now-I am going to approach the Minister of Justice on this-is for us to split this bill and do the family violence and stalking aspect and get it through before this House adjourns.


An hon. member:: Dissolves.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Dissolves, I am told by my friend.
There are some other matters I want to talk about. My friend, the member for New Westminster-Burnaby, wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice. In the letter she made some concrete recommendations to make this bill better and make it more workable. She suggested that we have some committee hearings so we can hear some people who want to say some things on the bill but we should do that quickly. We can still do that. We can do that next week or the week that we come back after a short break.
She is concerned about what constitutes reasonable fear. I am less concerned about that. I said that in debate this morning, but what is reasonable fear is something worth looking at. That is described in the bill. She made the point. I am still trying to understand this but I am open and I want to hear more about it in the debate. When we talk about reasonable in law we are talking about the reasonable man. Often in our justice system we have forgotten about the views of women and how they are particularly affected. We have to look at that.
Third, the member for New Westminister-Burnaby said that this bill may be used against picketers in legitimate labour disputes. I quote from her letter:
This is because both my private member's bill and your bill take a good deal of the wording of section 423 of the Criminal Code which also bars following, watching, besetting and some of the other behaviours you mention, but which is in a part of the Criminal Code which deals wilh contract law. In other words, it was meant to be used in labour disputes. My private member's bill specifically excludes legitimate union activity in picketing a work place. The government bill does not.
The minister then wrote back to her and said:"We do not really need to make these changes." We say: "You do. You need to clarify it. You do not want to confuse this bill with something that may apply later to say labour
law or some other aspects of law that is not dealing with the family."
I cite for the government's benefit from what is almost one of its own house organs: The Globe and Mail. This is an editorial in Toronto's national newspaper on April 28, 1993 that refers to the member for New Westminster- Burnaby:
Ms. Black's concerns are well founded. Re-read that definition of criminal harassment, and see how many examples of legitimate, desirable public protest it covers. If a group of environmentalists repeatedly visit a polluting factory, and they are, as protesters are wont to be, rude and angry, should they be charged with criminal harassment? If strikers in front of a business protest replacement workers, never resorting to violence but day after day crying "scab", is that criminal harassment? No. The legislation must make it clear that unpleasant but legitimate protests are not its target.
All that is required is for the bill to include an exemption or clarification, explaining that labour disputes and other forms of political speech and action, sometimes boisterous, passionate affairs, are not covered by this bill.
The Globe would not say "scabs" would it?
We propose to bring in such an amendment and I ask the government to consider it fairly. We even have the support of the national newspaper, The Globe and Mail. I do not know if that is a good argument for it or a bad one.
There are already two stalking provisions existing in the Criminal Code and they have different penalties. This has to be clarified because one of them, in section 423, is not repealed by the bill and has a summary conviction penalty only. So the judge may be confused. Does he or she apply that or does he or she apply the new stalking provision?
We talked this morning and the hon. member in her letter to the minister talked about the need to educate police forces and the judiciary about violence against women. This is very important. One can pass all the legislation one likes but that is only one part of it. One has to implement the legislation and have people understand the implementations: how does one implement it, how important the legislation is, what it entails and what Parliament is getting at.
We are seeing changes. We talked this morning about impaired driving. I mentioned when I was a young prosecutor when I kind of winked a little bit and said: "Well, it was just one of the boys having a few drinks." Now society takes impaired driving very seriously. The penalties have been increased. There is a mandatory jail
May 6, 1993

sentence. Kids say to their fathers or mothers: "Wait a minute. Do not get in that car if you have been drinking because it is dangerous." We have moved the society. Society has been educated there and starts to understand.
This has to happen with the issue of stalking and threatening women. There is too often a certain notion even among the judiciary, although that is changing. It is among the police, although that is changing too. There is still the notion out there that it just happens in a family dispute. It is just a family dispute or it is just going to happen and there is nothing much one can do about it.
The instances that the member for New Westminster-Burnaby revealed to the House today were simply astounding. It went all the way from leaving rats on the door to locking flowers in the car to consistent phone calls-300 phone calls a week-to terrorizing women to following them to following the car of an ex-wife because she got a visit from a friend and the thinking was that the friend was a new suitor. The member said this morning that it is based on a sense of this notion of always having power and control over women, of possession.
It is hard for me to understand this not being a woman. However, when I heard the women in the House talking eloquently about this I began to realize that it is really awful to be stalked and to be terrorized. They go to the police only to be told: "Oh, well, forget about it." They might say instead: "There is nothing we can do."
If we pass this bill there will be an effective, I hope, weapon in the hands of women so that they can fight back on this. That is why it is so important to pass this bill.
I believe I have summarized some of the problems with the bill. I suggested that it be split up. I suggested a number of amendments that could be brought in. I really feel a bit disheartened by the government in the past week or so. We have a bill on sentencing. We are going to do another bill on proceeds of crime. We are going to do a bill on child pornography. We are going to do a bill this afternoon on psychoactive drugs. They are all going to go to committee. I have the feeling that this is all just a ruse to make the government look good, to make it look as if it has a program. Yet none of it will see the light of day
Government Orders
because it was brought in too late and at the end of a Parliament that will not have enough time to consider it.
I say let us pick-this is good leadership and what the Minister of Justice should do-one or two of these bills and get them through Parliament. The opposition and we in the New Democratic Party will co-operate and we can bring these laws in, especially in this area where there is a bill whose time has come to protect women and other people from the terror and stalking they suffer from.
Having said that I will sit down and hopefully we can put this bill through in principle this afternoon.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that, although I will certainly be supporting it, is not one that really impresses me or impresses the millions of victims and potential victims of violent criminals in this country.
There is no doubt that we need legislation against stalking. Vulnerable members of our society have surely been denied protection for too long from being hounded and intimidated by former spouses or just by neighbourhood degenerates.
The stalking issue has been addressed in considerable detail in this morning's and this afternoon's debate so I would like to focus my remarks on other issues of great concern to Canadians which are also contained in this bill.
Unfortunately other elements of this bill will be of little relief to parents who leave their children in child care or allow them to play in local parks and other facilities. This bill provides for up to a lifetime ban on convicted sex offenders to frequent day care centres, school grounds, play grounds, community centres, public parks or bathing areas where children are likely to be found or to seek and obtain employment that involves a position of trust or authority over children. The bill also provides for the court to impose no prohibition at all.
This is all very nice and is certainly a modest improvement on the current situation. However concerned parents will be quick to ask why a convicted sex offender who is considered sufficiently dangerous to be banned from being around children is allowed on the street at all.

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
Why is it that someone who has proven himself to be a predator of children should be given the freedom and opportunity to destroy more young lives? There is nowhere in our cities that children cannot easily be found by one of these sick individuals.
It is not sufficient to declare only a few areas as safe zones nor will these areas be any safer. How will these people be identified if they are free to travel throughout the country? How are police forces going to keep track of all these criminals as they maraud from district to district, especially as police resources are being cut back? More important, are child molesters really going to be thwarted in their search for new prey?
On the way to Ottawa there is a McDonald's restaurant with a play area for children. Can this law stop an offender from going to his local fast food restaurant, shopping mall or ice cream parlour?
I support this bill because it provides police forces with an additional, though insufficient, weapon against the degenerate filth that roams our streets.
I do not think that this bill will substantially reduce the number of child victims of repeat sex offenders. Bill C-126 will fail to provide children with the security they deserve because it fails to address the dilemma that has allowed so many rapists and child molesters onto the streets of our cities and towns.
Many of my constituents fervently believe that if the National Parole Board were in charge of the Metro Zoo, wild animals would be all over the streets of Toronto. They are in a state of perpetual disgust at not only the light sentences that sex offenders receive but the unconscionable level of early release.
Not long ago, the Minister of Justice told Canadians that untreated sex offenders have a 30 per cent likelihood of reoffending. What that means to Canada's women and children is that for every 100 rapists and child molesters who are released by the National Parole Board, at least 30 women and children will be raped or molested. The National Parole Board has to know that every time they release a batch of 100 predators that they are guaranteeing that 30 women or children will be victimized.
Canadians are often bewildered by these decisions and by a government that forces them to keep children within easy range of known sexual predators.
We all know the cause of the current level of victimization is really a financial one. It is horrendously expensive to keep sex offenders behind bars. That is why the government prefers the kind of legislation we are discussing today, which makes some effort to restrict the availability of prey for those offenders who are driven to hunt children. It is the cheap way out, to talk about protecting children while not having to spend the money for proper protection.
Federal authorities can open the cages of sex offenders without sufficient regard for the threat these predators pose to unsuspecting citizens. Responsibility for their actions is not borne by the government but instead by innocent women and children. Victims will see their assailants recaptured, convicted and then released after another insufficient stretch of imprisonment.
These releases will save the federal Treasury thousands and perhaps millions of dollars, but will also create countless victims. I believe governments cannot balance their books by allowing sex offenders to claim victim after victim with only short interruptions in prison. It is time the government placed its highest priority on the safety of children. The key to keeping children safe is the key to the cages of sex offenders.
No less daunting is the task of dealing with stalkers. Women are stalked not necessarily by released sex offenders but by people they have once trusted or admired. Here we tread on a behaviour that often ends in tragedy.
Representatives of some women's groups have questioned the potential for this bill to be turned against the very people it is clearly intended to help. They wonder if the woman repeatedly calling an ex-husband for overdue child support could be prosecuted under this act. This will always be a problem when a law specifically intended to protect women is phrased in gender neutral language. The tragedy this bill responds to is not the presence of harassing behaviour. The tragedy is the violence that too often comes at the end of an extended period of stalking. By restricting stalking we can hope to protect women from eventual violence.
Perhaps the bill would be improved if it were specific on who is likely to be a threat to whom and not be so given to political correctness. Since 1974 over 400 women were murdered by men who had been stalking them. That is the issue that needs to be addressed. We should
May 6, 1993

adopt amendments that make this more clear, less ambiguous and more direct.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on this very important initiative, Bill C-126.
It is an omnibus bill which would do a number of things. It would create a new offence of criminal harassment for stalking by prohibiting communicating with or following someone with the intent to harass them. It would also prohibit sex offenders from frequenting places where children congregate and from being employed in positions of trust over children. It would also facilitate the ability of child witnesses to give evidence in court.
I want to say right from the beginning that we support this legislation. As a matter of fact it follows very quickly on the tail of the legislation of my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, who some time ago introduced a private member's bill that was actually much tougher when it came to stalking.
However, after a lot of urging from individuals, victims, women's groups and organizations that have raised concerns about stalking for a long time, the government now is taking some action. I want to say we appreciate that.
However I must question the government's sincerity. After all, we are here at the end of a mandate and the stalking of women is not a new issue. We have heard some eloquent presentations during the day by people describing the horror associated with stalking and women being harassed and treated in a most barbaric fashion by ex-spouses or by ex-partners. I remember the example of the singer Anne Murray and an oddball from the prairies who stalked her for years and years. He was convicted 11 times, yet it continues because the laws of the country are inadequate.
We do not have to look very far to see what other jurisdictions have done. I believe 29 states in the United States have enacted their own anti-stalking legislation to protect women from being unfairly harassed by men and ex-partners and treated in the most disgusting way with phone calls in the middle of the night, hour after hour, people dropping off dead animals on their steps just to remind them that they are spying on them, following them on foot, driving behind their cars and tracking them
Government Orders
from place to place. We have even seen movies that reflect this horrible activity, and we have no laws to stop it.
There are some rather inadequate passages in the existing Criminal Code that make some vague effort to do this, but in essence the police are helpless. The laws simply are not there. A number of states in the United States have taken action on this and have legislation in process. Here we are on the eve of the end of a mandate and the government takes this initiative. I am somewhat suspect but I will say we are pleased that it is here now.
I want to say on behalf of the New Democratic Party we will do whatever we have to do. We will debate all night long. We will sit here over the weekend to ensure that this legislation passes so women can be protected from this hideous experience so many people have to put up with.
It is interesting that less than two weeks ago I had the opportunity to spend a good part of a day with various RCMP officers from the Kamloops detachment. We were talking about a number of issues. I asked them to what extent stalking took place in our region. They indicated they received calls on a regular basis and had been for many years. They felt quite helpless in their ability to respond satisfactorily. They pointed out, like everyone else, the inappropriate legislation in this country. Similarly it was pointed out by members of the legal profession and organizations that assist women who have been stalked.
These organizations that assist women who have been stalked and women experiencing other forms of violence have had their funding cut by the government by 10 per cent this year. Next year it will be 15 per cent. The year following it will be 20 per cent. In other words, the signal is that the government is not supporting these organizations in their very important and critical work.
Not only do we need additional services and at least a commitment to maintain the existing services but we now need to change the law to give the justice system an opportunity to stop this type of behaviour. The Department of Justice in my recollection had one short meeting with organizations such as Elizabeth Fry to get input into this legislation. I remember reading afterward that a number of people attending the meeting felt it was totally inadequate. Maybe they were happy that it was occurring, but one of the reasons we have a rather inadequate piece of legislation before us is that the

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
department did not receive sufficient input from the groups that assist the victims of stalking.
I want to quote from a letter written by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, who on behalf of the New Democratic Party brought in a private member's bill that would have been a major effort to combat stalking. She had said that the government bill was drafted without adequate consultation with victims of stalkers and organizations that have helped them and advocated on their behalf. She went on to say that the government bill proposed stalking be considered either an indictable offence with a maximum prison term of five years or a summary conviction offence which is lesser.
My colleague's bill proposed that criminal harassment should only be considered an indictable offence with a five-year maximum imprisonment for the first offence and ten years for each subsequent offence. That oddball from Saskatchewan who stalked Anne Murray would be in prison a good part of or perhaps all his remaining life. She also proposed a maximum of ten years and a minimum of six months imprisonment for people who stalk and harass their victims while subject to a restraining order or a peace bond.
I am quite happy to say that in my province of British Columbia 14 municipalities have passed motions in support of my colleague's private member's bill in favour of strong anti-stalking laws to protect women. That points out the general community interest in the whole issue.
We want to give this matter the priority it deserves. I notice with interest this is an initiative by the government at this late date that attempts to deal with crime against women and children. Yet the government is giving priority to the Mexico-U.S.-Canada trade deal. It seems to be misplaced priorities. We have something that an overwhelming percentage of Canadians oppose, that is NAFTA, and we have something that probably 99 per cent of Canadians would enthusiastically endorse, and the government seems to be taking a rather cavalier and casual attitude toward it all. I suggest to the minister
that the government's priorities are misplaced. The government should put a lot more emphasis on the legislation.
As I said on behalf of my colleagues, we are prepared to stay here all night or over the weekend if it would help move this legislation through to completion before the end of this session of Parliament.
I want to end by simply saying that stalking of women in our society is a very serious problem today. Hundreds and thousands of women are being harassed day after day after day. Their lives are being made intolerable. Stalking, just to remind us all, includes such things as persistently following someone, spending periods of time watching someone's home or place of work, making harassing phone calls to someone, making contact with someone's neighbours or co-workers, contacting and possibly threatening someone's companion or spouse. It goes on and on. It is the kind of thing all of us in the House would surely want to give our full attention to in order to ensure this legislation passes quickly.
In the spirit of moving this legislation along, I have lots more to say but I will say that in committee, at report stage and at third reading. I simply say again on behalf of my caucus that we will do whatever we can to expedite this legislation through the House of Commons and hope that our friends in the other place, the Senate, will give it the same priority.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a short question.
I appreciate the very thorough speech of my friend from Kamloops. My friend is not a lawyer but he knows what a false pretence is anyway. It is in the Criminal Code. We could almost call the government a bit guilty of false pretences.
The NDP House leader will know the government has before the House in the dying part of the session a bill on sentencing, a bill on the proceeds of crime and a bill on pornography and children. I saw an article about the Solicitor General and another bill in the paper today on dangerous offenders and keeping them in jail longer. Then it has a bill on psychoactive drugs and this bill. I
May 6, 1993

wonder if the hon. member can tell us what the government is actually going to debate in the next three weeks.
Ele goes to the House leaders' meetings, he looks after that. One would think if the government was really serious it would allocate time so that we could deal with all these matters. The hon. member said in his speech that this government really wants to deal with NAFTA, the North American free trade agreement, and not with crime. I find it to be almost a false pretence for it to say to the Canadian people that it has a program. I can just see it on the campaign trail. The government will say: see all these bills we have, but we just could not get them through the House of Commons.
Who controls the agenda of the House of Commons? Who brings the bills down? What is the government's agenda for the next four weeks when the House will be sitting?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this very serious question from my hon. colleague, because it is a question that a lot of people who are serious about this issue must be asking. After all, this government has been in office now for nearly nine years and here we are, in literally the last four or five weeks of its mandate, it has pushed its mandate right to the nth degree, and it is only now introducing this kind of legislation that people have been calling for to protect women and children and society generally for years and years.
Therefore I question the sincerity of this initiative. On the other hand, let us at least say it is now before us. The litmus test of it all will be to what extent are we going to spend days in the House of Commons, at second reading and third reading, to facilitate this? If the government keeps putting forward pieces of legislation like the North American free trade agreement then that is obviously its priority. In other words, a trade agreement that most people oppose is the priority rather than protecting children from sex offenders, from protecting people's property, from protecting women from stalkers, and on and on as my colleague has indicated.
I want to make this very clear. This place succeeds or fails depending on the willingness to co-operate and what the government considers to be priority legislation.
Government Orders
It introduces the legislation. We can only facilitate its passage or not facilitate its passage.
I want to say that on these bills, which will bring security to Canadians and their families and peace of mind to Canadians generally, particularly women, children and elderly citizens, the New Democrats in the House of Commons will do whatever we have to do to facilitate their passage.
However, the government introduces the legislation. It indicates which bills we discuss in this House and in what order. Therefore I appeal to my friend the government House leader to make these bills a priority, make the children of this country a priority, make the women in this country a priority, make the seniors in this country a priority, and make the victims of crime a priority in this country. If the government does it will have full and complete co-operation from New Democrats in the House of Commons to ensure the passage of this legislation before we rise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before recognizing the hon. member, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised this evening at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception-National Defence; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Immigration; the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley-Softwood Lumber;	the	hon.	member	for
Nanaimo-Cowichan-Fisheries; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-Port of Churchill.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-126 is a small step in the right direction and my party will support it.
Mr. Speaker, I might start by pointing out, since you and I are both from Edmonton, that I have something to mention that has been bothering me a great deal. A young woman, married with a child now, came to see me about this issue of harassment about two and a half years ago. You may recall the case. She has been pursued since the age of 11. At the age of 14 her stalker put her in his trunk.

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
She and her family have been living in absolute turmoil. She is now in her twenties. The thing ended when her stalker-I could give his name but it will not be necessary, it has been in the papers in Edmonton-came to her stepfather's house looking for her and basically gouged the eyes out of her stepfather.
Fortunately she was not hurt and her brothers were not hurt. Earlier, on another occasion he came to their home with an axe. He had to be subdued before he was taken away. Basically nothing happened to him in court. He has now been sentenced to nine years in penitentiary. However she is going to have to worry for the next five to six years that he is going to get out again and he may continue to make her life miserable.
There is not a member in this House who does not want to see something done about this issue. Anything that will give people peace of mind is something that members of goodwill on all sides of the House will support.
The problem is that this is simply a band-aid, hopefully a useful band-aid, that we are putting on a very serious problem in society. We can pick up books, we can see videos, we can go to movies, we can buy this serial killer board game that is out now. It is based on some serial killer in the United States. The game comes complete with body bags. The object of the game is to see how many children one can kill. This game is legal. It is considered to be adult entertainment. How many stalkers have gotten the ideas for what they do from what they see on television and what they see in videos or read in books.
All of these things are done in the name of artistic or literary licence. In an age when values seem to be the real problem in many areas, I wonder how many of these 400 women my colleague from Mississauga referred to earlier who have been killed since 1987 were killed because some mentally weak person saw something on television and then went out to try to imitate art? How many catastrophes have occurred to people because of what people have seen on television or in movies?
Bill C-126 obviously has some good features in it. I would like to speak about a few of those. The bill would
prohibit anyone-it says any person but to my knowledge there has never been a man who has been killed by a stalking woman, at least not in my experience as a Crown and defence attorney. To be politically correct and to get by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have to say:
any person with intent to harass is now to be barred criminally from
repeatedly communicating with or following another person or
anyone known to that person.
The second thing it does is increase the maximum penalty for the offence to five years in prison. Contrary to what was said by my colleague from the New Democratic Party, a lot of Canadians would like to know why it is not 10 years for somebody who does the kind of things that were done to the young Edmonton woman.
The problem with the existing provisions of the Criminal Code appears to be that the burden of proof is very high. The victims of stalkers have traditionally had a very difficult time convincing the police, clerks at the court so they could swear in information, and judges themselves.
There is a good provision in the bill that deals with bail conditions. If passed, and I certainly hope it will be, a judge can impose a condition that an accused cannot go near a particular place, for example a family home such as the home of this young woman in Edmonton.
That would certainly improve upon section 5(15) of the Criminal Code in which a judge can only require the accused to stay in a particular place but not stay away from a particular place.
As for situations of family violence which are again all too common today, the judge must consider imposing the bail conditions that the accused not go near a particular place and that he not communicate with any person including the victim.
There is a section on conspiracy which I think we will all want to look at in committee because it allows for a husband and wife to be found guilty of conspiring with each other, particularly with respect to children one assumes.
With regard to parental child abduction, right now children are not protected from abduction where there is a valid test of the order, but the abducting parent honestly believes the order to be invalid. This bill would change that and would also cover women who are being
May 6, 1993

battered and who take children with them when they flee.
Now if the children are not being battered along with their mother, the mother could be charged with abduction in taking them with her. An amendment to the code would allow for a defence in such circumstance.
On the section on child abuse the code already says, as you know, that anyone convicted of a sex offence or who is found loitering in or near a school, park, playground or swimming area commits a summary conviction offence of vagrancy. Unfortunately in my experience summary conviction offences rarely carry much more than a fine. In my experience paedophiles are certainly prepared to risk a fine all too often.
One court in British Columbia has found that the present wording of the code with respect to what I just mentioned is unfair. It is a lifetime ban and they feel that is unfair. I certainly hope the Supreme Court of Canada will reverse the B.C. Court of Appeal when the appeal is heard by it. Some people feel the term loitering is too vague also but I would submit that it is not too vague.
This bill before us would allow for up to a lifetime ban on a convicted sex offender from frequenting day care centres, school grounds, playgrounds, community centres, public parks, bathing areas where children are likely to be found, from seeking and obtaining employment that involves a position of trust or authority over children.
The court would have the discretion to tailor the prohibition to each individual or not to impose a prohibition at all. I think that strikes me, at least, as being eminently sensible.
With regard to child witnesses, currently judges tell juries that there is a danger in convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of a child. Bill C-126 would repeal that rule and a child's testimony would have the same weight as an adult's. I think many people who have spent a long time in the courts would feel that probably a child's evidence should often have more weight than many adults'.
Where an accused represents himself in cases of child sexual assault, the judge would now be allowed to appoint counsel for the accused and conduct a cross-ex-
Govemment Orders
amination of the child witness. This bill would allow a judge to permit a friend or relative of the child's choice to be close to the child while testifying. That is designed of course to reduce the psychological trauma which those children often suffer. The person rendering the support could be instructed not to communicate with the child while he or she was testifying.
At present a judge can exclude any or all spectators from a court room if it is in the interest of "public morals or the proper administration of justice." This bill suggests a test be included in the code to strike a better balance between the rights of the public to be present and the interest of the child.
What are some considerations that might be brought to bear when this bill, hopefully very shortly, goes to committee? First the requirement that a victim must reasonably fear for his or her safety could be very problematic. Such a test is traditionally known as the reasonable man test but as I am sure you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, what is reasonable to a man, especially a large man such as yourself, may be completely unreasonable to a 90-pound woman who is being stalked.
Police in judicial training will be very important if this problem is to be overcome. I might also suggest perhaps a subjective standard would be better than the objective standard that is applied now under the reasonable person test.
Second, a recent study funded by the Ontario Women's Directorate found that of the 551 women murdered in that province between 1974 and 1990, 78 per cent of them were killed by former spouses or companions who had stalked them prior to their deaths. Women's fears are thus well grounded and challenges to convince police, clerks, Crown attorneys and the judiciary of the fear that we are talking about in this bill.
Third, on a matter that has been raised by at least one other speaker since I came in, the question about the motivation of any government that waits until its fifth year. Why would any government wait until there are presumably five weeks more of sittings before we go to an election to introduce this bill? One assumes that the government wants to try to take credit for introducing this bill, but one would wonder why it has not done something about this important issue, which has been an important issue, in the preceding nine years. Similarly, in

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
passing one might ask why it has not done anything about issues such as child pornography during nine years.
There are a host of criminal justice issues, but why has nothing been done about the question of allowing a blood test where a woman has been assaulted? I regret to say that this has happened to one of my constituents. She was raped in her apartment. She naturally wondered if she had been given some horrible disease and possibly AIDS from this assailant and she was told that she had no right to see her assailant's blood test results. There is a similar case in Cowansville, Quebec.
One wonders why on this and on so many other issues we have waited in this Parliament so long before dealing with these issues.
The attitudinal issues are far more important than what we are attempting to do in this bill. How are we going to change the thinking of one-sixth of men? How are we going to change the mind-set of men which has allowed so much family violence to continue to occur, including stalking? Women cannot do it alone and unfortunately, speaking as a former Crown attorney, we cannot do very much by passing a bill like this. At least we can show how strongly Parliament feels about the matter.
The argument that the bill may be used against legitimate strikers and protesters is surely a non-starter. There is already section 423 in the code which outlines intimidation and threatening behaviour. Strikers who engage in such behaviour are already breaking the law.
There have been fears expressed that this bill could be used against women who repeatedly call their ex-husbands for overdue child support payments. That is a valid concern. The government argues that a man receiving such phone calls could not reasonably fear for his safety. The danger is that the police might use the same argument against a woman who is receiving unsolicited gifts, love letters and so on.
Other than extensive police and judicial training it will be difficult to address this issue legislatively and to provide a remedy for the problem we are dealing with.
Some serious consideration should be given to the suggestions of a Quebec coroner, Anne-Marie David,
who investigated two recent stalking-related deaths in her province. She suggested the following: "1) Courthouses and police stations should have part-time or full-time information desks reserved for victims of conjugal violence so that they know their rights and can overcome insecurities about pressing criminal charges. 2) Convictions and bail conditions in conjugal violence should be marked with a special code in police computers to ensure swift action against recidivists. 3) Women should be informed when their violent partner is being released from jail or on bail. 4) Suspects ordered to turn over weapons should be accompanied from court by a police officer who seizes the weapon immediately. 5) Measures should be taken to see men removed from the family home in cases of conjugal violence. 6) Consideration should be given to following London, Ontario's lead in having a social worker accompany police to scenes of domestic violence."
I have a colleague who wants to speak on this bill as well so I will close quickly. The state in the United States with the toughest anti-stalking law is Illinois. I will only quote from part of it, and it is something we might consider perhaps grafting on to the bill that we are dealing with now. Its section on stalking reads:
A person commits stalking when he or she transmits to another person a threat with the intent to place that person in a reasonable apprehension of death, bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement or restraint, and in furtherance of the threat knowingly does any one or more of the following acts on at least 2 separate occasions: (1) follows the person, other than within the residence of the defendant; (2) places the person under surveillance by remaining present outside his or her school, place of employment, vehicle, other place occupied by the person, or residence other than the residence of the defendant.
The second one I would mention is aggravated stalking and I quote again from the Illinois code:
A person commits aggravated stalking when he or she, in conjunction with committing the offence of stalking, also does one of the following: (1) causes bodily harm to the victim; (2) confines or restrains the victim; (3) violates a temporary restraining order, an order of protection, or an injunction prohibiting the behaviour described in subsection -
I hope that when the matter goes to committee, as I gather it will this afternoon, that some of these provisions of the Illinois code will be considered along with the proposed bill on stalking.
May 6, 1993


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to be given the opportunity to address this piece of legislation.
The first comment I want to make is that it is about time. It is about time, is it not? Why has this not occurred before? Why wait until now? Clearly and unfortunately it is for election purposes, but still there is some use within this piece of legislation and I am prepared to acknowledge that.
In every single part of the country we all know of incidents where there have been victims of stalking. In Manitoba during the last couple of months, unfortunately, there have been fatalities. One wonders if something like this had come into being some time ago whether or not these fatalities could have been prevented.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you agree with me, we need to take every single measure to protect not only women, but women in particular obviously, but all others in our society who are potential victims of violence. There is nothing that we should not do to prevent that. What is important is not only this piece of legislation which I think is symptomatic of a much larger problem, we need to take an over-all look at violence in society. Time and time again in this House I and other colleagues have spoken about inappropriate use of language on radio and television and acts of violence. We have talked about killer board games. It is rampant and somehow we have failed to meet that challenge.
Not only do we have to take an over-all look at violence in society, I think we have to address the whole question of attitudes. How do we feel about each other? How do we feel about acts of violence as portrayed by the written media, radio or television? What are the changes that we need to make in order to deglorify, to take away that aura that is given to violence and is very often a very positive one?

One of the reasons why I wanted to address this, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that you are probably aware of this is that barely ten days ago, my party, the Liberal Party of Canada, under the direction of its leader, announced a number of measures. I have a booklet here on crime and justice in which the Liberals announce a
Government Orders
series of measures, among them severe measures to combat violence against women and children.
In this announcement, we find some examples, such as making stalking illegal. The Liberal member for Moncton presented a bill on this which could be a model for such legislation. It is a concrete example of how we could proceed. Without wanting to be mean, independent authorities told me that my colleague from Moncton's proposal is better than the government's because it is more specific, it goes farther and is more severe.
Besides this first proposal for severe measures to combat violence against women and children, we also have an amendment to the Young Offenders Act. We toughened up the firearms regulations, which is extremely important because too often, unfortunately, people have been killed as a result of the freedom to own guns in this country. We also want law reform, crime prevention and public awareness. I could give several other examples.
As I was indicating, it is very important to look not only at this legislation, which is important-it should have happened a long time ago-but as well we need to look at the whole phenomenon of violence in an over-all context. We need to change the attitudes of Canadians with respect to violence in the school yard, in the streets, as portrayed by the media, whether it be written, on radio or television.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, because you have been in the chair often when I and other colleagues have spoken about the totally inappropriate use of violence on radio and television. We seem to have become desensitized to violence. Society becomes increasingly violent and we just adapt to it. That is not good enough. That is totally inappropriate. We need to change that.
I am particularly pleased that my party has chosen to announce a series of measures and I just want to refer to some of them. On April 22, less than a couple of weeks ago, the Liberal Party under the direction of our leader announced a crime and justice package. I want to share some of the points that we made in that announcement. I think they are very important.
May 6, 1993

Government Orders
We talked about crime prevention and urban safety, the situation that we now find ourselves in. We talked about ways that we could address that. We talked about young offenders and the fact that we needed to deal with them very differently than we do today. We talked about gun control, recognizing that we need to control the use of guns in a very significant and different kind of way. We talked about prostitution. We talked about the rehabilitation of sex offenders. We talked about violence against women and children. We talked about the proceeds of crime and what to do in those particular situations. We talked about sentencing and rehabilitation, about pornography, about parole, about the court challenges program. That is the one that the government decided to take out. Do you recall that, Mr. Speaker? We would be quite prepared to restore that particular program. We talked about the Law Reform Commission of Canada, another program that we would like to restore. We talked about hate crimes.
I would recommend to you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you are an avid reader, but to your colleagues as well, a profound examination of this whole package. In this package we have a comprehensive approach to the control of crime and to the approach to justice in a much more sensitive and realistic way. I am absolutely delighted that we have taken this initiative.
Yesterday I was speaking about the North American free trade agreement. I said it was probably one of the most important questions in front of Canadians today and that they wanted to discuss it, to hear the various questions addressed and they wanted answers to their questions before government could proceed. Here is an equally important question for Canadians. How will the federal government deal with crime and justice? I believe that there are a number of answers in this package.
Let me make a couple of other brief points with respect to this legislation. I will try not to repeat eveiything that my colleagues have said. Obviously the bill discusses criminal harassment. It discusses as well bail conditions, conspiracy and parental child abduction as well as child abuse. It refers to child witnesses and how they would be dealt with.
I want to make the point that there are some very positive things in the legislation. It is unfortunate it has taken so long for the government to bring it forward. We have indicated that we support this initiative, but at the same time we believe that it could be improved in a number of significant ways. If my colleagues would like
to raise questions I would be absolutely delighted to give them examples.

In closing, I just want to say that in principle I fully agree with this government initiative. I gave some examples that it could use to improve it. I am ready to give some more because, as I said earlier, we have just made a comprehensive announcement about how we in the Liberal Party would deal with this issue that is particularly important for Canadians.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member, I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills, without amendment: Bill C-83, an act respecting the transportation of goods by water; Bill C-88, an act to amend the Copyright Act; Bill C-97, an act respecting marine insurance; Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act; and Bill C-117, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1993.


PSYCHOACTIYE SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
Henry Perrin Beatty: that Bill C-85, an act respecting the control of psychoactive substances and their precursors and to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Proceeds of Crime (money laundering) Act and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and
May 6, 1993

referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this bill today.
This bill, the psychoactive substance control bill, addresses one of the most compelling issues with which society is faced today, the issue of drug abuse.
Members will recall that six years ago the government launched Canada's first ever drug strategy. This was an infusion of $210 million from 1987 to 1992, in partnership with the provinces, designed to take direct aim at a range of areas of greatest need, chief among them the areas of education and prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, and enforcement and control.
This was followed by a second phase from 1992 to 1997 of $270 million, $60 million more, of which the major focus will be on prevention, education, treatment and rehabilitation, in other words, to take people off drugs and to prevent others from starting.
We must keep in mind that every $1 spent on prevention is equal to about $7 for treatment. There will also be an increased emphasis in this second phase on reaching those most at risk, such as young children to high school ages, 11 to 18, or in grades 7 to 13, street kids as well as drop-outs and aboriginals off reserves.
The problem of drug abuse is widespread. According to a United Nations survey, trade in illegal drugs is second only to world trade in arms. To illustrate the point the volume of business in illegal drug sales is more than $5 million per hour, 24 hours a day. Such is the clout of the global industry we are up against in our efforts to control drug abuse in Canada.
Recent statistics reveal that within a single year almost 15 per cent of young Canadians aged 15 to 19 have admitted using cannabis. Moreover the incidence of drug abuse rises considerably among teenagers and young adults who are school drop-outs, unemployed or homeless.
Further evidence shows that over a one-year period 2 per cent of Canadians claim to have used cocaine. That is
Government Orders
500,000 people, enough to fill the Toronto SkyDome 10 times over.
These are formidable figures but what do they mean? What is their significance in sum? They mean heartache and suffering. They mean crippling misery being exacted on those caught in the seamless web called addiction. They mean a rise in crimes such as prostitution, illegal possession, use of firearms, break and enter offences and destruction of communities with threats to the peace and security of our cities, schools and neighbourhoods.
The real importance of these figures goes well beyond the statistical relevance. They translate into millions spent on health care, family welfare, unemployment benefits and disability pensions. Bill C-85, along with the proceeds of crime legislation passed by the House back in 1989, is fully consistent with the strategies and objectives relating to enforcement and control.
Last month, in April, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-123 respecting the Seized Property Management Act. That bill would establish a federal program to share the forfeited proceeds of crime with other jurisdictions or, in simpler words, hopefully have the proceeds used by the police forces directly involved in attacking the illegal drug trade. That bill would directly aim at those who seek to profit from exploiting the young and the vulnerable. Together with Bill C-123, Bill C-85 is intended to consolidate and enhance the government's drug policy underlying two current acts of Parliament and to fulfil Canada's obligations under two international conventions relating to the illegal drug trade.
In 1961 the government of the day enacted the Narcotic Control Act. In 1961 and 1969 Parliament passed parts III and IV respectively of the Food and Drugs Act. In essence much of our existing legislative framework is now more than 30 years old. Furthermore, as a signatory to two international agreements on the illegal drug trade, Canada is obligated to the terms of the single convention on narcotic drugs of 1961 and the convention on psychotropic substances of 1971.

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
Consequently the psychoactive substance control bill, Bill C-85, is designed to achieve three prime objectives. The first is to provide the government with the flexibility to better control the import, production, export, distribution and use of psychoactive substances. The second is to provide the mechanisms needed to implement our obligations under international agreements. This relates to the restricted production or trade of internationally regulated substances designed for medical, scientific and/or industrial purposes. The third is to enhance the ability of the police and the courts to enforce the law. The bill currently provides for the seizure and forfeiture of property used in offences involving psychoactive substances.
As a result of royal assent at 4.45 p.m. I believe we will be asked to suspend the debate for a few minutes. I hope the bill at second reading today truly gets the opportunity to go to committee. I am just going to briefly summarize a few points and conclude my remarks to the House.
The bill will try to empower the police through new measures to use warrantless searches where necessary. When the conditions for a search are there and they would have obtained it for the protection of the public, of the people involved or of important evidence, the bill would permit police to do so. The bill would also help us in making new definitions with regard to drugs to better conform to the needs of today compared to 1961 as we are dealing with bills that are 30 years old.
The bill does many of these things. If we take it in conjunction with the other bill I mentioned, Bill C-123, the proceeds of crime bill, the two together would enable us to come to terms with the modern reality of the illegal use of drugs, the way in which these people are destroying the neighbourhoods in our cities, the way in which these people are destroying our young people, and the way in which these people are dragging young women into prostitution in order to live off these drugs.
I commend the bill to the House. It is a good bill. It is worthy of study. There may be some points of division on it. We will want to look at them in committee where I think they can be met. I have much more to say on the bill but I know my time is almost over. I want to make
sure the bill moves forward to committee. I commend it to the House as a bill worthy of support to move it to committee and a speedy passage through to third reading so that before the end of June it can be sent to the Senate and we can start to attack the illegal drug trade and those who profit from it.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-85 is an act that reorganizes the framework to be used in the battle against the production, trafficking and possession of controlled substances.
The charter of rights has rendered obsolete certain laws which were useful in drug enforcement. This bill gives police forces additional powers to undermine producers and traffickers of narcotics. In fact there are many provisions contained in the bill which will significantly impact on the exercise of the duties of police officers as well as the courts.
It strikes me as strange that a bill of such consequence, first introduced last June, has sat around the House for nearly a year before the government decided to move it forward. With barely a month left in this Parliament, the bill seems sure to die on the Order Paper.
The government's motive for letting the bill die is quite transparent. Why would the government want to be drawn into conflict with defence lawyers, some doctors and other health professionals immediately in advance of an election, even if it might be in the best interest of Canadians? It was so much easier to drag it out 'til a few weeks before the close of the House and let it die, all the while claiming commitment to dealing with the drug problem.
For years I have been listening to police officers who have expressed their immense frustration in dealing with drug traffickers. Police feel they could be far more effective if proceeds of crime legislation were improved, a matter I raised with the Minister of National Defence when she was Minister of Justice last year.
At that time Canada had been found guilty of having the highest rate of drug crimes per capita in the developed world. The current framework for the confiscation of property obtained through crime works in favour of the criminal because local police forces face financial
May 6, 1993

obstacles whenever they attempt to seize non-cash assets.
Bill C-85 allows police officers to conduct a search without a warrant in exceptional circumstances where the conditions for obtaining a warrant existed but it would be impractical to obtain one. This would clarify a situation clouded by the fact that warrantless seizures as sanctioned by current legislation have been declared inoperable and in violation of the charter. The provision for warrantless searches in Bill C-85 is said to be charter-proof. Thus a substantial improvement in enforcement procedures has been allowed to collect dust for a year before the government saw fit to bring it to the floor of the House.
Furthermore, Bill C-85 provides for property other than the psychoactive substance or real estate that was used for illegally distributing psychoactive substances for profit to be regarded as offence related property.
This new concept would allow not only for the seizure of drug apparatus and money but for the seizure of other objects. This may include allowing vehicles used in an illegal drug transaction to be seized. By sitting on this legislation the government has squashed this additional weapon that the police could have used in their fight against crime. Bill C-85's new production clause would allow for a wider variety of forms of production to be deemed criminal. This is particularly important in the case of magic mushrooms. Possession is an offence but cultivation is not. Cultivators of magic mushrooms would no longer be able to escape the law were it not for the delay in bringing forward this bill.
Another important feature pertains to chemically altered drugs which may not be listed on the schedule but are psychoactive drugs nonetheless. Bill C-85 would have closed the hole that allows traffickers in these substances to escape justice. Sentencing provisions have also been altered, but since maximum sentences for drug offences are rarely handed out these changes do not merit much attention.
It is a shame that Canada's citizens will be deprived of these improvements by the negligence of this government. In the month that remains the one thing that remains certain is that we will not have time to study this
Government Orders
bill to be sure it is technically sound. We can only doubt that it will even see the light of day.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill as well.
I think there is a lot of hypocrisy going on around here. The drugs that are really big killers are alcohol and tobacco.


An hon. member:: It is 50,000 a year.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is some 50,000 people a year.
This is a throwback bill that goes back to Nancy Reagan's war on drugs. The Prime Minister stood up in this House four years ago and said that he was going there too.
He broke another promise by never doing anything. Now at the end of a dying Parliament, as the hon. member who last spoke so clearly said it, here we are now dealing with a very complicated bill.
I know a little bit about this. I wrote an article about this. It is one of the few articles I ever wrote as a bit of an academic in 1969. It was published in 1970 in the American Journal of International Law. It was on psychotropic drugs and on the original UN Convention.
I tried to look at this in what I would call unhypocritical terms. I introduced in this House a motion and discussions on an international criminal court which would deal with narco-traffickers in different parts of the world. That is something that is really worth pursuing.
Let us look at this bill and we do have it in front of the House. It comes back as the parliamentary secretary said from 1987 when there was a drug strategy to consolidate the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act.
I find it very strange. For the amusement of some of the members one of course could put this bill in committee and bring it back in the House and make a motion with reference since we are consolidating and changing the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act that would deal with the legalization of cannabis. This would of course force the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of the Environment, both former cannabis users, to vote on the bill. I wonder which way they would vote. I suspect they would be far away from the House.

May 6, 1993
Government Orders
This bill is a significant departure from existing legislation. There has been little attention paid to it in the media. There has not been enough attention paid by people in criminology, pharmacology and the health care community.
It is hard to get some comments from people at the Addiction Research Foundation and so on. They seem to just want to let the bill languish and die. Now it is here and now they are going to have to deal with it and eventually it will have to be dealt with.
We hope to hear from these people in committee. We hope to hear from the criminal bar. This changes some of the offences in drug trafficking. There is a different offence for cannabis trafficking. As a matter of fact there is a lesser offence for some cannabis smuggling in one aspect of the bill. This is a long and complicated bill.
Let me give an example. I will just read from my briefing notes on this. The bill creates an integrated, six-part scheduling scheme. Items listed under the Narcotic Control Act, cannabis, cocaine, opiates, et cetera are now listed under schedule I. Items from schedules G and H of the Food and Drugs Act are now listed under schedules II and III though there has not been a carbon copy transfer. So even that has changed.
New substances have been added. For example there is Catha edulis Forsk, or qat, which is used by the Somali community. Some amphetamines have been moved up from schedule II. This is significant in that possession of only schedule I and II substances are offences. Schedule V lists precursors, so it gets more and more complicated.
In fact there will be phrases like: "intended to be used for introduction into the human body which produces a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect but does not include a precursor." This gets very complicated. How substances are going to be factored into the schedules is quite unforeseen.
I personally agree-and I see my friend, who is a former prosecutor, in the House-that we do have to have another look at the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act. We have to look at that in some detail. They need to be modernized.
I will just end on this. I would like to see the bill examined thoroughly by committee. I wish we had more
time but the parliamentary secretary says that we should come to terms with the modem reality of drags. Then he starts an attack in terms of the war on drugs. That is fine. I believe that we need a healthy society that is basically drug free and which believes in the health of the individual and that is the way we should develop as a human race. However, there is a lot of hypocrisy here and someone has to call it.
The member for Skeena with a bit of tongue in cheek introduced his private member's bill. We have the parliamentary secretary standing up taking a hard line and we have the two leading candidates for Prime Minister of this country who have said, quite honestly, that they smoked cannabis. We have the President of the United States who smoked but did not inhale. We have the U.S. Vice-President who smoked but inhaled. I would hate to go around and do an informal poll of this House of Commons.
Let us cut the hypocrisy. Let us change these laws and update these laws. Let us try to look and see which laws are really working and which are not when we say to the young people of Canada: "We are going to give you an updated modem law that really works and that does not contain a lot of hypocrisy in it."


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I just started to look at the bill. As one former prosecutor to another former prosecutor, does he not think that section 22 dealing with forfeiture of proceeds of crime is the really major part of the bill? Does he not think, in terms of things like the balance of probabilities test rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, that is where those of us who would like to see a drug free Canada see most of the merit in this bill?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I think part of the problem of the forfeiture of proceeds of crime-it is in another bill as well-is that one has to be careful that one does not have the police rely on it. There are some American examples where the police start relying for their budget on the forfeitures from crime. One gets some very strange attitudes that happen.
I would prefer that the police are budgeted to do then-work with the proper and necessary budget and they do not finance directly their budget, or their budget is not dependent, on the proceeds of crime.
May 6, 1993

Adjournment Debate
We want, as the justice committee recommended, the proceeds from crime, including drug crime, to go for crime prevention. Some of the programs that the parliamentary secretary mentioned include drug prevention programs. I think we need drug prevention programs and real ones instead of hypocritical ones.
We need real ones to show some of the dangers of an addiction to drugs and what that really does. My friend has seen what addiction has done to all sorts of communities and people who come before the courts of Canada every day. It is pretty tragic. We want 1 per cent of the budget to go for crime prevention and we want the money from the proceeds to go to crime prevention. That is where we would like it to go.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 3, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Maheu (p. 18773).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I suggest that the sitting be suspended to the call of the Chair.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting until the call of the Chair?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.03 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6.36 p.m.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
May 6, 1993
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. John Sopinka, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, May 6,1993, at 6 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,

Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would advise the House that even though we do hear a siren, we do not have to evacuate the building at this time. It is strictly a technical problem and no danger to us.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
May 6, 1993
Adjournment Debate PORT OF CHURCHILL
['Madam Speaker, as a follow-up to a question on February 23 of this year I want to tell you that for several months now I have been expressing, along with my colleagues, great concern over a number of areas with respect to peacekeeping.\nTo begin with, the size and the scope of peacekeeping operations range from peacekeeping to the very edge of peace-making; concern about how thinly we are stretching our resources; concern about the ratio of regular force to militia; concern about the expressed opinion of senior officers with peacekeeping experience; and expertise experience in peacekeeping, in uniform in an unprecedented manner. The testimony of two doctors in uniform most recently-Shall I go on, Madam Speaker?']
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, the purpose of my standing today is to petition the government to take seriously the future of the port of Churchill. I know hon. members across are very aware of the fragile nature of some of the ports and the business they do around the world.
The port of Churchill has a very unusual and unique role to play. First, it can serve the eastern and northern part of the European markets. As the Soviet Union has broken up and takes a different shape there are a great number of opportunities for us to use the shipping between Ukraine for example and other republics to develop an even greater level of business.
Second, when we look at the northern part of Canada Churchill has served as a jumping off point for serving these communities through its airport as well as through its port.
The Churchill community has been under threat. It has lost its economic vigour for several reasons in the past 10 years. We on this side of the House would like to see the government make a public commitment to continuing the role of the port of Churchill and to be very aggressive in its support.
We understand there is competition between Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax, for example, on these different issues. I think there still is a unique role. If for some reason the government feels it cannot continue the port of Churchill then I think it should seek out support from the farming community which very much wants to use the route which it calls the Hudson Bay route to take grain out of the northwestern parts of Manitoba and the northeastern part of Saskatchewan.
There is a very well-known advocacy group which I have listened to many times. It makes a lot of sense. Its members met with us. There are ideas they can fulfill. I think it is incumbent upon the government to understand that. If it cannot operate the rural lines and CN wants out, I think it should let other people come in and use that infrastructure. If it does not want to develop the airport at Churchill, step aside and let other people do it. Do not keep people in this holding action and do not cause a slow deterioration of people whose lives are very dependent upon what Ottawa says.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his concern for the future of surface transportation to the port of Churchill.
The rail line into Churchill serves four main functions: export grain, northern re-supply, plus local freight and VIA passenger service to Churchill and other communities. Export grain is the main traffic on the line and the future of the rail line in the port will most likely be determined by decisions on grain traffic.
Churchill is eligible for subsidies under the Western Grain Transportation Act based on an average subsidy of about $20 per tonne. This government has provided around $70 million in western grain transportation subsidies for grain exports through the port of Churchill since 1984.
Over the last 10 years grain exports through the port of Churchill have ranged from a high of 622,000 tonnes in 1983 to a low of only 50,000 tonnes in 1988. Last year 250,000 tonnes were shipped. To recover its operating costs the port needs about 600,000 tonnes.
I am sure the member can appreciate that decisions on grain exports are made by the Canadian Wheat Board on the basis of market considerations. It would not be prudent for the government to interfere in the marketing decisions of the wheat board as it is in the best position to pursue its mandate and maximize returns to prairie farmers.
It should be noted that the Hudson Bay rail line is built in part on discontinuous permafrost. Due to the frequency and unpredictability of resulting sinkholes, the line is expensive to maintain. For safety reasons CN limits grain traffic to boxcars and does not operate grain hoppers on the line.
The boxcar fleet is depleting. Significant capital expenditures will be required to replace the car fleet and improve the line if it is to continue in grain service over the long term.
The Minister of Transport has advised the House that the government does not intend to close the port of Churchill in the immediate future. However, we have a responsibility to look seriously at the long-term future of the rail line and the port in view of the potential capital requirements.
May 6, 1993

The citizens of Churchill and northern Manitoba must be assured that the government expenditures in the region will be able to stand the test of time.



Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, as a follow-up to a question on February 23 of this year I want to tell you that for several months now I have been expressing, along with my colleagues, great concern over a number of areas with respect to peacekeeping.
To begin with, the size and the scope of peacekeeping operations range from peacekeeping to the very edge of peace-making; concern about how thinly we are stretching our resources; concern about the ratio of regular force to militia; concern about the expressed opinion of senior officers with peacekeeping experience; and expertise experience in peacekeeping, in uniform in an unprecedented manner. The testimony of two doctors in uniform most recently-Shall I go on, Madam Speaker?



ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Senate Chamber.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill S-17, an act to amend the Copyright Act, the Industrial Design Act, the Integrated Circuit Topography Act, the Patent Act, the Trade-marks Act and other acts in consequence thereof- Chapter No. 15.
Adjournment Debate
Bill S-8, an act to regulate the manufacture and importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to reduce the risk of death, injury and damage to property and the environment-Chapter No. 16.
Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act-Chapter No. 17.
Bill C-371, an act respecting a national child day-Chapter No. 18.
Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act-Chapter No. 19.
Bill C-l 17, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1993-Chapter No. 20.
Bill C-83, an act respecting the transportation of goods by water-Chapter No. 21.
Bill C-97, an act respecting marine insurance-Chapter No. 22. Bill C-88, an act to amend the Copyright Act -Chapter No. 23.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will resume debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I talked about the manifestations of concern, which is being expressed in many ways. I talked about doctors in uniforms speaking out in the last couple of weeks.
The chief of the defence staff at the time, who is an expert peacekeeper and is now our ambassador to the United States, last November expressed grave concern about our continuing commitment, about more soldiers. The Secretary of State for External Affairs in her testimony in mid-February to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade expressed concern about overloading the system.
There has been concern expressed by experts to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on the quality and the kind of equipment, the method of deployment, the method of deciding who to send. The litany goes on. Red flags are being thrown up which tell us and which should tell the government that we are having less than a smooth passage in our peacekeeping operations.
Little wonder. Last year at this time we had less than 2,000 troops in peacekeeping. Now we have 4,700, at a time when the Canadian forces are reducing 4,000 soldiers. We heard from testimony yesterday that it is going to be another 2,000.

May 6, 1993
Adjournment Debate
The red flags are up and the trends are going in the wrong direction. We have to be the only country in the world that would commit our troops to a line of fire in foreign territory without so much as a word of formal debate in Parliament. We now have perhaps one of the most crucial peace operations-I would not want to grace it with the term peacekeeping-taking place in Bosnia. We all know that last night it looked as if the peace agreement, such as it was, was not even going to be approved in whatever form, which was better than nothing.
It is my thesis we have now reached a very critical point in this operation. I find it very upsetting as an individual, and I believe I speak for my colleagues on this side of the House, that there does not appear to be one person on the government side who is running the show.
At a time when we have our troops at risk in Somalia and particularly and in Srebrenica, as expressed by the commander there, and at a time when negotiations are being done by the most powerful country in the world for air strikes, the Prime Minister is off on foreign visits. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence are not running the show. Questions are being fielded by the government House leader. It is not good enough.
The Canadian public needs to know: what is the mandate of our Canadian forces in Bosnia? They want to know what the rules of engagement are and they want to know what contingency plan the government has in the event that western air strikes take place. These are all legitimate questions. We should have had our first debate when we dispatched our first peacekeeping troops.
Before I wrap up I want to make the point that we must have a debate, whether it is an emergency debate or a debate on the initiative of the government, to consider all the factors that were brought before the House this evening. I would tell members that this is long-term concern. It is not going to go away tomorrow, the next day or the next day.
As you know, Madam Speaker, the House will be shutting down for the summer soon. We do not have a date on it yet. I would implore the House and the government to have in place some institutionalized standing effort so that Parliament can monitor the
peacekeeping operations throughout the summer and the fall depending on what happens after the House recesses for the summer.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, as we have said on several occasions, the Canadian Armed Forces are still able to carry out their specific tasks, but with nearly 4,500 members deployed on various missions throughout the world, the resources of our ground forces are somewhat stretched.
The situation, however, is not more critical than we expected, nor does it defy the limits of our defence policy.
Before making any new commitments, the Department of National Defence evaluates each proposal for peacekeeping operations in terms of personnel and equipment requirements and the expected duration of the operation.
Furthermore, the department makes no commitments before considering the repercussions on other Canadian Armed Forces' activities and operations.
At the present time, Canada is able to meet its current peacekeeping commitments. However, considering the rising number of peacekeeping missions and the decision to cut Canadian forces personnel, from now on Canada will have to be very careful in selecting future tasks to avoid compromising existing peacekeeping missions or other Canadian Armed Forces operations.
Consequently, Canada's response to future requests for participation in peacekeeping missions will largely depend on the amounts Canadians are prepared to spend on defence and peacekeeping activities.
These are important questions, and Canadians will have to consider how much they are prepared to contribute to peacekeeping missions. Last fall, Canada, with 1 per cent of the world's population, contributed 10 per cent of UN peacekeepers posted throughout the world.
I think we should also remember that, although the regular forces are now being cut, a corresponding increase in the number of reservists and their integration

May 6, 1993

in the regular forces will help the Canadian Armed Forces maintain their contribution to current operations.
I realize the hon. member is also concerned about the number of reservists currently assigned to peacekeeping missions. Not long ago, one of his colleagues said in the House that 50 per cent of replacement troops in Yugoslavia would consist of reservists. In fact, once the rotation process is complete, only about one-quarter, and not 50 per cent, of our troops in the Balkans will consist of reservists.
The ratio of regular forces to reserves may vary, depending on local conditions and the reaction time available for training.
Every member of the Canadian Armed Forces assigned to a peacekeeping mission is given the training and level of preparation required before departure. In addition to training, information sessions are provided on the culture and political system of the region to which the individual will be assigned.
The hon. member should find these comments reassuring but, as I said earlier, Canadians will have to consider the extent of our future commitment to UN peacekeeping missions. The government is anxious to have this kind of discussion so that we can clearly establish our future involvement in peacekeeping missions.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley
Valley): Madam Speaker, last February 22 I had the chance to ask a question in the House of the Minister of Forestry at that time about an expected decision on softwood lumber.
As timing would have it, today we received a decision from the panel that has been studying the whole question as to whether we in Canada subsidize our softwood lumber exports to the United States. Therefore the discussion tonight is very timely.
The decision, and it relates to the question I have presented, was the review by the panel to determine whether we in fact subsidize our softwood exports to the United States. We have had a mixed decision that on a number of points recognizes many of the arguments all
Adjournment Debate
members have made in this House in terms of the way we manage our forest and in terms of the challenge that has been raised by officials and politicians in the United States and the U.S. lumber lobby. However today's decision is also a disappointing one on two points.
The first one is that it really points to the failure of the free trade agreement on this case because all this panel does is review and determine whether the decision of the commerce department in levying the 6.5 per cent tariff on Canadian softwood lumber was made properly. The ruling today does find that in some cases it did not. In another case it was also determined that our stumpage systems are proper and in place.
There are two points that I would also like to raise which are the disappointing parts of the decision today, and one is a very odious decision.
The first is that this refers the decision again for another 90 days and puts off resolving this dispute. Most people in the forest sector are interested in seeing it happen, if I am not mistaken. It has been two years since our country rightfully cancelled the memorandum of understanding, and the issue has yet to be resolved. We have another 90 days which brings us to another panel decision on injury. That, if it follows the same precedent this committee has set, will give another 90 days. At the very least it may not be until the end of this year when a final decision is made.
The odious part of the ruling today is it determined that the raw log export restrictions, and particularly in British Columbia, confer a subsidy on softwood lumber exports to the United States. Clearly nothing could be less correct. The people in British Columbia today are very upset by this decision. It shows that more work is going to have to be done as the commerce department has ordered to review this detail more. People are very upset about this part of the decision.
We have also learned the U.S. lumber lobby which earlier said that it would challenge any part of any decision might move in the favour of Canada to launch an extraordinary challenge under the free trade agreement.
We have reached the point now where I implore and call upon our government to call upon the Clinton administration to drop the tariff now. It is hurting
[Stage Direction]
May 6, 1993
Adjournment Debate
American home builders and it is hurting Canadian forestry workers.
Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend will be aware, Canada, the provinces and the Canadian industry appealed the final determination of subsidy and injury and the U.S. countervailing duty investigation of softwood lumber products from Canada to binding binational panel review under chapter nineteen of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The two binational panels have been constituted and are reviewing the U.S. determinations.
Earlier today the FTA binational panel reviewing the final subsidy determination of the Department of Commerce in the countervailing duty investigation issued its findings. The panel unanimously instructed the Department of Commerce to re-examine its determinations on each of the key issues in the case. The panel's findings reflected in large part the arguments made by the Canadian parties. This is a positive result for the Canadian lumber industry and demonstrates that the FTA dispute settlement mechanism is working.
The federal government, the industry and the provincial governments mounted a strong defence before this panel. A second FTA panel reviewing the United States international trade commission's injury determination will report its findings by July 27, 1993. Under article 1904 of the FTA, Canada or the United States can request an extraordinary challenge committee to review a binational panel ruling on any of the following grounds:
(i)	a member of the panel was guilty of gross misconduct, bias, a serious conflict of interest, or otherwise materially violated the rules of conduct,
(ii)	the panel seriously departed from a fundamental rule of procedure, or
(iii)	the panel manifestly exceeded its powers, authority or jurisdiction -
It must also be determined that any one of these grounds:
- has materially affected the panel's decision and threatens the integrity of the binational panel review process,
These criteria must be met before an extraordinary challenge committee can be established to review the
results of a binational panel. The government has neither sought nor received assurances from the Clinton administration that the United States will not seek the establishment of an extraordinary challenge committee.


FISHERIES
David Stupich: Madam Speaker, the question I asked last February was with respect to the aboriginal fishing strategy introduced on the west coast just in time for last year's salmon season.
It was perhaps well enough conceived but the implementation of it was all wrong. The department did not take the time to get it operating properly. It was not ready for it from the point of view of supervising or of having people on the scene who were ready to deal with transgressions of regulations. There were a lot of expectations raised in the minds of many aboriginals that this was going to be a new policy that would open the door to them having the right they feel they already have.
Nevertheless it would give them the opportunity to harvest as many of the salmon as they chose to harvest. It is entirely up to them to set their own limits.
There was the fear in the minds of the white fishermen that the allocation of the resource that had been very carefully considered up to that point in time and divided among the various users was now going to be left to the aboriginals in part to determine what they wanted. Then if there was anything left the whites would perhaps have access to it.
That is not the way it was meant to be. It was not the way it was supposed to be but there were these fears in the minds of people that in practice it was going to work that way.
The experience of that season did nothing to allay those fears. The first announcements to the effect came from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials that 1.2 million sockeye had gone missing in the Fraser River alone. From the time they were counted in going through the gates at Mission until the time they got to the spawning grounds, 1.2 million went missing. That did nothing to allay the fears that the department did not really know what it was doing and that it was allowing the
May 6, 1993

salmon industry on the west coast to be destroyed as was the cod industry on the Atlantic side.
I have been asking the minister questions about this from time to time as I had the opportunity to find out what is happening this year. Following the Pearse-Larkin report the minister said that he would not proceed with the aboriginal fishing strategy in any of the watersheds on the west coast unless there was a watershed agreement with all the users as to what was going to happen in the season coming up.
I have asked from time to time what progress was being made. Has he been able to sign any of these watershed agreements up to this point in time? As of February, when I asked him, he had not. However, word soon came out that he hoped to have watershed agreements in place by the middle of March.
I have tried from time to time to get on Question Period to see what progress has been made but have not been successful. Today I learned when the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries that a watershed agreement with respect to the Skeena has been negotiated. I am not sure whether it is signed but a watershed agreement with respect to the Fraser is very near completion. There are a few hold-outs among the bands but there is hope that a watershed agreement with the Fraser will be signed as well.
The minister reassured committee members and me- I was the one asking these questions-that the implementation of it would be at a totally different time. Anyone breaking any regulations, whether aboriginal or white, would be dealt with in a very decisive manner but the resource was going to be protected. There was no question about that.
I left that meeting feeling reasonably confident that the minister was assuring and reassuring the fishing people on the west coast that the aboriginal fisheries strategy will go ahead again this year but it will be a totally different strategy. The implementation of it will be totally different and it should be much more successful than it was last year.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague will know that considerable progress has been made in arriving at a Fraser River watershedwide agreement on salmon allocation to native groups.
Adjournment Debate
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans met on February 4, 1993 with Fraser River chiefs to explain the need for a comprehensive, integrated approach to the management of native fishing on the Fraser River in 1993.
Native organizations on the Fraser have taken the minister's lead and have been meeting among themselves to arrive at a consensual approach to in-river fisheries management that reflects their diversity of needs and priorities.
The department was invited to attend an information session for chiefs of the Middle Fraser River Band on May 4, 1993. The Fraser River Watershed Agreement has been prepared and signed by a large number of native groups in the Fraser River watershed.
The agreement sets out a process for arriving at a satisfactory and equitable allocation. The agreement also provides for an integrated approach to the management of fishing efforts.
A signing ceremony has been arranged for May 12, 1993 at which the remaining native groups in the Fraser watershed are expected to sign the Fraser River Watershed Agreement. The negotiation of bilateral management agreements consistent with the watershed agreement will be concluded quickly afterward.
To provide for rigorous monitoring of fishing efforts and enforcement of regulations the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has recently provided a class-room guardian training program and will operate joint patrols throughout the fishing season to provide on the job training.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his senior departmental officials have met with representatives of the commercial and sport fishing industry on a regular basis. Meetings were held on February 23 and March 25 and 26 in Vancouver between the minister, representatives of the native community, representatives of the commercial and sport fishing sector and most recently the government of the province of British Columbia. A future meeting is scheduled to be held in early mid-May.
The purpose of these meetings is to take into account the concerns of all stakeholders and to develop consensual approaches to native involvement in the management of fishery resources which will be equitable to all interests.

May 6, 1993
Adjournment Debate


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. The House
therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at ten a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 7,1993