1993-06-10

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 48 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of my visit to the United Kingdom as the delegate from this House on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I do not know why there is any cause for merriment, Madam Speaker, I am presenting a report.


An hon. member:: It is just that we like Peter.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I also like the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, but I would like to hear what he is saying.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It is always nice to hear my own voice, Madam Speaker, but I want to table the report.
I happened to be the only delegate that went from this Parliament to this meeting. Only one was invited. The lot fell to the Liberal Party this year and I was selected by my Whip and the members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to attend this meeting.
I may say that the trip was a most interesting and enjoyable experience. I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from 15 Commonwealth countries. Their names and positions are detailed in the report. I am pleased to table this report today in fulfilment of my obligations.



FINANCE


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Subcommittee on International Financial Institutions. It is also the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
This report deals with Canada's relations with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and calls for a full scale review of Canada's relations with those two institutions.
I would like to add my thanks to the members and research staff of the committee for their hard work in making this report possible.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-453, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.


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

June 10, 1993
Routine Proceedings


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a private member's bill which will amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.
A good number of residents in my riding of Sarnia- Lambton, local law enforcement officials and members of the judiciary have expressed concerns and suggestions with respect to the Young Offenders Act.
In response the purpose of this bill is fourfold. First, it defines a young person as someone being between the ages of 10 and 16.
Second, it will instruct a judge to give primary consideration to the protection of society when considering a transfer to adult court for repeat young offenders and those charged with a violent offence.
Third, the bill will ensure that any young person who is found to experience a destructive home environment and who is convicted is directed to proper rehabilitation facilities.
Finally, it will make the criminal record of an offender available to the offender's school principal.
It is with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce these amendments on behalf of my constituents of Sarnia-Lambton.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. James 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.



CROWN PROPERTY LIENS ACT


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-454, an act to make Crown land subject to provincial mechanics' or builders' liens legislation.


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


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give subcontractors working on or supplying materials to federal Crown property the protection of provincial builders or mechanics lien legislation by allowing liens on federal Crown property and obliging the federal Crown to make the required hold-back of payments to the main contractor in order to ensure that subcontractors are paid.
Over recent years many subcontractors on federal government projects have been left holding the bag when main contractors have gone bankrupt. This is very unfortunate and I believe that small and medium-sized
businesses in the construction area require this kind of protection.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Boudria 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.



HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-455, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act.


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


Rex Crawford: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of two of my constituents, Maria and Robert Weese of Wallace-burg, Ontario, who tragically lost a son in an accident when a portable soccer net blew over.
This private member's bill is an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act and comes on the heels of the coroner's jury recommendations of the Wallaceburg case.
The bill would require that all soccer goals, hand ball goals and field hockey goals for recreational or school use be fixed to the ground. There are many other cases where nets have blown down and youngsters have been injured or even killed in both Canada and the United States.
I commend the Weese family for working to prevent other possible tragedies. I am proud and honoured as their member of Parliament to present this private member's bill today.
June 10, 1993


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Crawford 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
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I have 19 petitions signed by people from the province of Ontario and from as far as the western and eastern parts of this country. These people want to establish Canada-wide standardized tests for students.
The people who have volunteered to gather these signatures were directed by Mrs. Cynthia Bled, an Ottawa Board of Education trustee. I want to thank them for all the work they have done.
The petitioners are concerned, as are many of us, with the fact that Canadian youth are leaving schools too quickly, that some 30 per cent do not finish secondary school and that 40 per cent of Canadians in 1993 have difficulties in reading and arithmetic.
If we want to compete in this international global economy we will have to be able to train our young people to better defend themselves and to learn and develop better skills.
These people are asking that national standards for testing in education be established across the country and I would like to endorse that.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present yet another series of petitions concerning the serial killer board game.
Today I am tabling 1,549 more signatures from across Canada asking the government to ban the importation of the serial killer board game.
The House will know that I have tabled to date petitions containing 46,695 signatures to ban this prod-
Routine Proceedings
uct. This is in addition to those tabled by many other members thus far.
I want to thank all Canadians and all members of Parliament who have helped in this exercise and who continue to do so. I continue to encourage Canadians to solicit signatures to ban the importation of this product into Canada.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The people of my area of Okanagan Falls, Penticton, Kaleden, Oliver, Osoyoos, Greenwood, Grand Forks, Keremeos and Summerland are concerned about the affordability of telecommunications with the entry of Unitel and with the passage of the recent bill by the government.
The petitioners urge the government to consult with all affected parties, especially the rural residents who are at risk of having substantially increased costs for local telephone calls. That has already occurred in the province of British Columbia.
They urge the government to hold local hearings in the rural communities before deciding the fate of Canada's telephone system and pay attention to the direction given by the local people.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition certified by the clerk. The 25 petitioners are concerned that the $55 billion we spend on education and training be spent properly.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to co-operate with the provinces and to establish a Canada-wide standardized test for students.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, like the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier I have a petition signed by numerous residents of Ottawa. They are also concerned about the expense governments in Canada incur in support of education.
They call upon the Parliament of Canada, in co-operation with the provinces, to establish standardized testing for students across our country so we can get better value for our education dollar.

June 10, 1993
Routine Proceedings


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present a petition on behalf of students throughout the country.
They humbly beg Parliament, in co-operation with the provinces, to establish Canada-wide standardized tests.


Mr. Jim KarpofF (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege to present two petitions this morning. One is signed by a number of residents in my riding of Surrey North in which they condemn the government's action of closing the immigration office and moving it to Vancouver.
They point out that it will mean poorer service in that people will have to travel into Vancouver. It also means the loss of jobs within the community. They ask the government to reverse its decision.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by a large number of people, mainly seniors who are concerned about the dramatic increase in drug prices since the government has basically wiped out the competitiveness of generic drugs.
They call upon the government to rescind both Bill C-91 and Bill C-22.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, some 32 constituents from Parkdale-High Park have asked me to table a petition in the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled.
The petitioners indicate that the Government of Canada has enacted legislation providing for two official languages, English and French, and the major political parties of Canada acted in concert in the aforesaid matters without consulting with or receiving a mandate from the people of Canada.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and the people of Canada, and the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by a majority
vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with a majority vote in a majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.
I know, Madam Speaker, you are looking at this petition with some disapproval, but as you know whether members of Parliament agree with petitions or not, they are bound to table them on behalf of their constituents.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, in the first instance I have petitioners who ask the government to allow child care deductions from income where families have special needs children. This is particularly important for single parent families with special needs children. Very often these families have no choice but to use services and facilities which are extremely costly.
The petitioners feel that the current laws are unfair, insensitive, and can in fact be discriminatory. They ask the government to review the legislation.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, in the second instance I have petitioners who want child care facilities for workers who need such facilities. They want a reform of the unemployment insurance rules to ensure that there is no abuse of workers. They want the government to create situations favourable for jobs for the unemployed and for those who are on social assistance.
They would like the government to promote in-home jobs for mothers and fathers who want them. They want the government to consult the people in future budgets.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, finally I have a petition from petitioners who ask that there be standardized tests in Canada. They feel that this would be better for all Canadians.
There is an underlying question here or feeling that Canadians ought to be able to move from one area to another whatever their age level, whatever their credentials, and that those ought to be acceptable to other jurisdictions. That is a fundamental issue.
June 10, 1993


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):: Madam Speaker, my petition is like the one submitted by my friend from Parkdale-High Park. It is submitted by Mr. Kent Schubert and Vern and Doreen Lobb of Surrey. They avail themselves of the ancient undoubted right to present a petition to Parliament.
They point out that the Constitution officially makes Canada a bilingual country. They say the action of the government and the continuing action of political parties have disenfranchised the people of Canada on the subject of two official languages, English and French.
They ask that there be legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and the people of Canada, and that the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments be determined by a majority vote of those total votes in the whole of Canada, together with a majority vote in a majority of the provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.
I am pleased to present it on behalf of my constituents.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker,
I am pleased this morning to present a petition on behalf of many people in the greater Toronto area including Newmarket, Toronto, Islington, Mississauga, Ajax, Scarborough, North York and East York, all of whom are petitioning this Parliament and this House in connection with the intention of the Canadian Parks Service^ to establish a proposed national historic park on Grosse lie.
The concern expressed in the petition is that perhaps in approaching this proposal Parks Canada is ignoring the fact that 15,000 Irish men, women and children fleeing famine in Ireland in 1847 are buried on Grosse He in mass graves and the fact that through the generosity of the people of Quebec nearly 1,000 of the children orphaned that summer were adopted and allowed to keep their own names.
They call upon the Parliament of Canada to urge the government through Parks Canada to ensure that the Irish mass graves are perpetuated as the main theme of
Government Orders
the historic park on Grosse lie as a permanent reminder of the Irish role in the building of Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are 65 motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for report stage of Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing.

Motions Nos. 1, 4, 7, 18, 21, 57, 60 and 63 standing in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 4, 7, 18, 21, 57, 60 and 63.
Motions Nos. 2, 5, 8, 13,16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31,34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, 58, 61 and 64 standing in the name of the hon. member for Skeena and Motions Nos. 3, 6, 9, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50, 53, 56, 59, 62 and 65 standing in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville are identical to Motions Nos. 1, 4, 7, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60 and 63 standing in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

June 10. 1993
Government Orders
After consultations those motions standing in the name of the hon. members for Yorkton-Melville and for Skeena will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 10 and 11, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, are similar and, after consultation, Motion No. 10 will not be selected. Motion No. 11 will be grouped with Motion No. 12, standing in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, for the purposes of debate, but these motions will be voted on as follows:
(a)	if Motion No. 11 is agreed to, it will not be necessary to vote on Motion No. 12;
(b)	if Motion No. 11 is negatived, it will be necessary to vote on Motion No. 12.

Motions Nos. 15, 24, 27, 36, 39, 42, 45, 46 and 51 standing in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie all seek to introduce new concepts and elements which go beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to at second reading. Therefore in accordance with Beau-chesne's citation 698(1) these motions are out of order and will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 30, 33 and 54, standing in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(a)	if Motion No. 30 is agreed to, it will not be necessary to vote on Motions Nos. 33 and 54;
(b)	if Motion No. 30 is negatived, it will be necessary to vote on Motion No. 33;
(c)	if Motion No. 33 is agreed to, it will not be necessary to vote on Motion No. 54;
(d)	if Motion No. 33 is negatived, it will be necessary to vote on Motion No. 54.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 4, 7, 18. 21, 57, 60 and 63 to the House.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-110 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
That Bill C-110 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-110 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-110 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-110 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No. 57.
That Bill C-110 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 60.
That Bill C-110 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 63.
That Bill C-110 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this whole host of amendments. I appreciate the assistance of the Clerk in putting the motions in appropriate groupings.
I do not think it takes a great deal of reasoning to figure out that in attempting to delete clause by clause each clause in this bill, we were trying to get the point across that we wanted to disembowel the whole bill if you will, to negate it in its entirety. Trying to speak to each one of those perhaps would be difficult, so I think the groupings are very appropriate.
At this time it allows us to put a general perspective on why we oppose the bill. Certainly this is a chronology of how not to get legislation through any legislative body, in this case the House of Commons. This is an experience in how not to do it. One could probably write a book on how it came to this point.
Now we are at the eleventh hour and the fifty-ninth minute. There will be time allocation and we will debate it on Monday and Tuesday. There are those who say: "Enough already; we have spoken to this bill. We have had public hearings for three years. Everything that has to be said has been said". In the words of Public Works, there are studies from the floor to the ceiling in the minister's office on the impact of the positives and negatives of this bill.
The bottom line is even though that has transpired and even though all of those studies are available and completed, the fact is there is still a pending court case and the ultimate environmental study has never been done. Even though all of that has transpired the opponents to the fixed link are saying: "Our questions have not yet been answered".
Motion No. 4.
June 10, 1993

Government Orders
I think it behoves someone in this House to say: "Come on now, you know that the process was less than clean". I am not suggesting that the Minister of Public Works is fully responsible for what has come about here, but certainly it is a problem.
The whole fixed link project was not driven by anyone from any government. It was driven by a private developer saying: "Hey, would you not like to have a bridge or a tunnel? Do you not think that would be a great idea?"
I suppose many private developers are altruistic and they want to help the people of Canada. However, once in a while one does come down the line that perhaps is not so altruistic and does not want to build a billion dollar bridge just to help out the residents of P.E.I., New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and assist the tourism industry in Canada. We must at the least be suspicious of what is going on here.
Certainly we look at the process and the studies and our ice experts versus their ice experts. A study was done in 1988 when there was a very mild winter and a low ice condition. They said that was the wrong time to do the study. The Friends of the Island are saying to us: "Boy, if you were out there this year you would have seen the conditions on which studies should have been done", not at the low time but at the high time in order to get the full impact of what this bridge may do to the provinces involved.
There have been studies. One of the studies we questioned was a generic study on a generic crossing. Now they say: "Do an environmental assessment on this bridge, bridge x or bridge y, it does not really matter". Now there is a real bridge, there is a real proposal, but there has been no final ultimate study done environmentally as should have been done.
SCI, the proponent of the bridge, was asked to react to the Federal Court ruling that, no, the government did not follow the process properly, this final environmental review was not done. The government in its wisdom or lack thereof said that SCI had better react to this other study. So we are studying our own studies. Lo and behold, to the surprise of no one, the study that SCI did was acceptable.
If you are a proponent of anything and you study it, you are going to come out in favour of the particular proposal. There have been economic benefits studies. A government consulting agency hired and paid for by the federal government said it is not economically beneficial to Canada. It just does not fit. The numbers conflict. It is not acceptable. Another study was done which says it may in fact be economically viable.
No matter what study has been done economically or environmentally there is always another group saying that no, the figures are faulty, the environmental impact findings are faulty, it was done at the wrong time. Continual conflicting reports come forward.
Someone said that most of the Islanders want this. They had a vote on it. I think the vote was 60-some per cent to 30-some per cent but that was several years ago on this generic bridge. Does it not beg that we do not continually discuss this generic bridge?
At committee it was said that when the ice floe comes through it may hit one of the piers and put the bridge out of commission. That was absolutely right. It is a concern so what we are going to have to do is put bigger distances between the girders of the bridge. If they are spread out it will solve the problem.
Again it seems that this issue of the fixed link project has been addressed a little bit at a time. As a new wrinkle comes forward we are told it will be solved.
Something that has not yet been addressed, perhaps the provincial government of P.E.I. will address it on Monday, is the possibility of the bridge being out of commission. Constitutionally there must be a ferry in place to transport people. That should have been addressed in the very beginning.
We have continually brought forward solutions to problems as they crop up and here we are at the end of the process when it is still going to the court. I think it is important so I repeat that this is not how any legislation should go forward in this House. It is not a very clean process. It got out of hand. I understand that the government feels we are so far down the road, the private developer has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and the government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, that it does not want to scrap the

June 10, 1993
Government Orders
project. It wants to put on the best face possible, even though it knows it is not quite right.
As a result we have this melange and nobody is quite sure what the right answers are. They are not even sure of answers, let alone the right answers.
What we have tried to do is delete this thing. To finish, I want to say that the opponents have said if the government regulations are followed and the appropriate environmental review process does take place and the result is positive they will accept the decision. It is never too late.
I think the only problem we are dealing with now is the private developer saying if approval is not given, if we do not move on this very soon the whole deal is going to fall through. If the deal is as good as the proponent says it is for the people of Canada then let us do it, but let us do it right.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from the New Democratic Party. In reading over the amendments the New Democrats have put forward it looks as if they want to totally stop this project.
For a few moments this morning I want to talk about a subject that is very close to the heart of Prince Edward Islanders and every Canadian, and that is transportation.
It has been said that the railways were a steel ribbon which held Canada together. While they have been allowed to wither and die in most parts of the country, other transportation problems and solutions have found their way to the forefront.
My own province, about which we speak today, came into Confederation on the promise of speedy and efficient communication with the rest of Canada. Believe me, there have been many times when Islanders, along with many other Atlantic Canadians, have thought long and hard about those commitments and how the federal government has chosen to fulfil them. We have fought long and hard, especially when we see transportation policies developed that seem to hurt our region while at the same time other facilities in other parts of the country are improved.
If I might be permitted, I would like to give hon. members a short history lesson about the transportation
between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. In the early years after Confederation winter traffic and mail were transported by ice-boats, small open row-boats which were pushed, rowed and dragged across open water and ridges of ice and slush. Many tales of heroism and tragedy are told about the days of the ice-boats, but pressure from the government and people of Prince Edward Island led federal authorities to act gradually over a period of years to replace these ice-boats with a variety of ice-breaking ships.
This led through time to the massive ice-breakers that we have today which provide good service across the strait to the best of their ability. Even though the current Marine Atlantic fleet combines the best of modem technology there are many times in winter months when crossings are delayed at some length.
The first discussion of a fixed crossing began over 100 years ago with a proposal for the construction of a tunnel that would allow trains to move freely between Prince Edward Island and the rest of Canada. The discussion and debate on the tunnel project lasted for about 20 years. It gradually died out as the growth in usage of the automobile and the improvements in the capacities of the ferries signalled that a change was coming in transportation.
Even though each new improvement in the ferry service was hailed as the final solution it was soon found that better and more efficient service was needed and the call for improvements was renewed. The idea of a fixed crossing seemingly disappeared for 50 years, until the mid-1950s at which time plans were drawn for a causeway and then a bridge-causeway-tunnel combination. These plans were shelved in 1969. The idea lay dormant until the mid-1980s when the present round of fixed link discussions began.
Again there was an evolutionary process. The first proposal was for a tunnel that would transport automobiles and electrically operated trains. Eventually 12 different proposals came forward and were considered by the Department of Public Works.
The provision of a speedy and efficient transportation system has been at the forefront and will continue to be a dominant theme in the life of our province, as it has been in the life of our country. It is one that I hope we can resolve as concerned Canadians over the next few years.
June 10, 1993

While no solution is final we must always strive to do the best we possibly can based on what is available to us. The evolution of the transportation system between Prince Edward Island and the rest of Canada has been matched by the evolution of transportation across Canada and around the world.
While those hardy souls who braved the Northumberland Strait in the ice-boats would be amazed at the technology and the convenience of today's car ferries, we must remember that transportation elsewhere in the world has advanced to the same degree.
In the high-tech, competitive age in which we live we must be guaranteed convenient and easy access to the marketplace of the world or we will never ever be able to escape the economic doldrums in which we find ourselves. The process of resurrecting the idea of this fixed crossing has been brought here today.
At the risk of going over some very well-tilled ground I would like to share for a moment with this House some of the very detailed discussions and debate that have taken place over the past seven years and which have brought us to where we are today.
The Government of Prince Edward Island, following the federal Department of Public Works' decision to seek proposals for a fixed crossing, called a plebiscite in 1988. The campaign leading up to that plebiscite precipitated what can only be described as a passionate debate in Prince Edward Island which still rages in some quarters today. The vote was approximately 60 per cent to 40 per cent in favour. If there was a vote taken today the result would be in the vicinity of 70 per cent in favour.
After that plebiscite the original 12 proposals were pared down to seven and following more study, down to three. I am sure I need not remind members that a federal environmental review panel in 1990 rejected the so-called generic bridge proposal, stating that the risks were unacceptable. The environmental review panel had heard many social arguments as well as technical and scientific arguments concerning the link. Then an ice committee was formed by the federal government in 1991 to look specifically at the problem of ice and its retention in the strait by the bridge. That panel concluded that a bridge could be installed across the strait with no significant delay in ice-out time.
Government Orders
Following this report the federal minister asked for three proposals to go forward and through a rather lengthy process we have arrived at the situation we are at today. Strait Crossing Inc. of Calgary, Alberta has been designated as the firm that will build the crossing, but the debate still goes on in Prince Edward Island between the pro-link and anti-link forces. The economic, scientific and social aspects of the link are hotly debated. The claims and counterclaims sometimes become exaggerated. On occasion the debate can fall from the sublime to the ridiculous.
The issue of the fixed link was taken before the Federal Court and some comments were made in the judgment about the environmental review process. This round of meetings, as one of the demands of the judge was that a process be followed, was held as was specified and many people turned out. The province of Prince Edward Island has put forward an amendment to the Constitution in that legislature.
I personally feel the time has come to brush aside the rhetoric, the claims and the counterclaims and get on with the job. We must look at the whole project, not in terms of our own self-interest and petty and rather mundane fears but in light of the cold, hard facts that have been presented to us.
There have been over 90 studies done on this project over the years, and millions of dollars spent on them. I am personally committed to preserving the environment. We have said this all through the process. We believe that the studies have concluded that Premier Ghiz's 10 commandments, as they were called, have been met.
Of course there are other issues that have arisen, such as the ferry workers. Negotiations have to take place to see that these people are looked after, whether through transfers, early retirement or new job training. I believe that these things have been met and that we can go on and build this project. I believe that is the next logical step in the process of our transportation systems across this country.
I am very amused with the rhetoric concerning this project that has poured forth from my colleagues on the NDP benches. The citizens of Prince Edward Island and the rest of Atlantic Canada are not very happy with the criticism that has been levelled at our region by these instant experts who drop into our region from time to time, meet with a few people and their Atlantic supporters and then fly away again and make profound pronouncements from afar about our way of life, our

June 10, 1993
Government Orders
economy and our future. During their brief and not very well attended visits they develop a great expertise in our affairs and then pontificate at great length when they leave.
We do have our differences at home but we do resent being told how we do not deserve this development because we are too small and too insignificant in the great scheme of things.
Let us proceed with this project. We feel that all of the necessary commitments have been met and it is time to go on and see it through to fruition.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on report stage. The amendments that are in front of us, and there are a number of them, basically are just blocking amendments. They gut the bill. They delete these clauses clause by clause. Obviously they are meant as a symbol of opposition. They cannot be seriously debated because there is little meaning to them.
The hon. member representing the New Democratic Party was talking about some of the environmental issues and how we have to try to provide answers for the people. There are some people who, no matter what answers we provide or how many and how good they are, will never feel that they were enough. We know that. In society one can never answer all the questions people have, especially on an issue that does affect people emotionally.
I have talked to people on the Island and they are emotionally attached to one side of this issue or the other. Some of them want to keep their Island the way it is. Others want what I see as a bridge to prosperity and opportunity for the people of Prince Edward Island. In fact it is also a great opportunity for the people of New Brunswick and all of the maritimes.
As for the environmental issue, in the short time I have been dealing with this issue I have acquired two large brief-cases full of environmental information on the fixed link. I was perusing through some of it this morning in case we were going to be debating this issue for a while. I wanted to make sure I had the information
for reference. There is study after study dealing with various stages of the environmental issues, and these are the smaller ones that I could put in a small brief-case. I did not want to order a taxi to get up to the House.
They all contain answers. They contain analyses and evaluations of these very important issues. The net result is that they are providing answers that the people in Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canada, at least the vast majority of them, recognize and deal with the problems and concerns. The answers are sound and positive.
If we can satisfy the constitutional concerns, the continuing environmental concerns and the legitimate business concerns on the contract that has to be struck, then the vast majority of the people in Atlantic Canada at least want to see this project go ahead. I would argue very strenuously that the vast majority of people in Canada, if they understood the essence of this agreement, would also want this project to go ahead.
The previous speaker from Prince Edward Island knows the Island and this issue far better than I do. He knows that there is strong support, not only from Prince Edward Island but from New Brunswick as well. When the committee was meeting the current premier of New Brunswick and the former premier of Prince Edward Island appeared before it. I have a quote somewhere here but it is mixed up with all my environmental studies. That is the problem with overstudying.
Several of the members presently in the House today were at the meeting where testimony was given by both of those premiers, by the people leading the people of Atlantic Canada, that they believe in this project. They want to see this project go ahead. It is a real opportunity for the people on the Island and all Canadians.
I represent people from British Columbia. Some of them asked me: "How can you support this megaproject on Prince Edward Island?" I replied: "It is very simple. First, it is a major project for them but it is one that is unique".
I am hoping dearly that this is going to be successful. I believe it can show us the way for many other projects across the countiy.
June 10, 1993

In fact this project the people of Atlantic Canada have come up with is ingenious. It is going to be developed with money from private developers. It is not a government funded megaproject but it is going to have all the benefits of a megaproject. It is going to have the economic development spin-offs and people working in Atlantic Canada as if the federal coffers had been opened up and we were proceeding with a megaproject.
It goes beyond that. What we are putting into this is exactly what we would be putting into the existing ferry system over the next 35 years, no more, no less. At the end of that time we have a fixed link, a bridge turned back over to the government in operating order that will have probably more than half a century of use.
The tolls to the Islanders will be vastly reduced. The Islanders themselves estimate that over the next 35 years they will save over $250 million in tolls that they now pay. This is a major improvement for the people of Prince Edward Island. However all other Canadians, the people outside Prince Edward Island who are now having to subsidize and assist the Island because of the Confederation promise, will see the end of that subsidy.
I cannot say it any better than the premier of Prince Edward Island. She said in her speech yesterday: "When one takes into account the historical trends of toll rate increases at Marine Atlantic, the current fiscal realities of the federal government and the ever growing propensity to move to a user-fee philosophy, this change becomes a major achievement again on the part of the Islanders".
She says that using conservative assumptions-and I like her choice of the words conservative assumptions- on the toll it will result in a saving of $250 million to the Islanders in the payment of toll fees over the next 35 years. Subsequent to that the tolls on the bridge will be limited to the operational costs of the bridge.
She goes on to say, and I am pleased to quote this section: "I wish to commend the hon. Elmer MacKay for the leadership he has shown with respect to this project. He and his colleagues have done a tremendous service to the Canadian taxpayer. They have developed a longterm framework whereby they can meet their constitutional obligations without continued subsidization".
Government Orders
I would like to quote her closing remarks which say better than I ever could what this will mean to Atlantic Canadians: "In closing, in the Speech from the Throne there was reference made to the goal of economic self-reliance and self-determination for Prince Edward Island".
She goes on to say: "Transportation is an integral part of that equation. No longer will we be subjected to an intermittent transportation service. No longer will we be subjected to transportation uncertainties. No longer will we be subjected to divisive and protracted debate. No longer will we be subjected to unfettered toll increases. In tandem with Canada and SCI we are embarking upon self-determination and self-reliance in our transportation link to the mainland in a responsible and businesslike manner. The time for protracted debate is over. The time for action and decision is now".
Her message is to let the project proceed. I believe it is a good message for this House. The government and I appreciate the support and co-operation we have received not only from the Government of Prince Edward Island but also from the other governments of Atlantic Canada.
We look forward to proceeding through report stage and the successful conclusion of this project to establish the fixed link.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in this debate. I do so with all appreciation and sensitivity to my colleagues from Atlantic Canada.
I have to say in the frankness of Parliament there are many Atlantic Canadians, not just on the Island, not just friends on the Island, but Canadians in other parts of Atlantic Canada who do not favour the fixed link for a
variety of reasons.
I want to declare my bias right at the start. I am philosophically against the fixed link, before getting into all the studies, before getting into the dollars and cents of this so-called contract out, build a bridge and 75 years down the road it has to be repaired. We talk about tolls. There are going to be tolls. That is my fundamental bias before getting into the facts and figures. That is where I am coming from.

June 10, 1993
Government Orders
I understand some of the debate going on, having good friends from P.E.I and there are members from P.E.I. in the House. No one will really know until if and when it is ever built how it is going to change the character of the Island.
As far as I am concerned-not being a native of the Island it may be a little easier for me to say-but I do resent some of the remarks made by the hon. member from Hillsborough whom I do respect. I do resent some of his remarks that members not from Atlantic Canada who raise questions in the House of Commons perhaps do not have the right to raise those questions. They have that right by the very fact that it is a bill before the House of Commons. It involves members from across the country and it involves the taxpayers of Canada.
One of the biggest shams of this bill is the business and charade that it is not going to cost the taxpayers any money. That is absolutely patently false. If the government had come clean on this public relations aspect of this bill many moons ago perhaps I would not feel quite as compelled to give another viewpoint from Atlantic Canada that it is not all peaches and cream in Atlantic Canada. I am not going to talk any more about the sociological aspects.
I used to practise law in British Columbia. I have a couple of children living there now. People may wonder why my friend from Cariboo-Chilcotin in British Columbia is pushing the fixed link, other than the fact that he is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works.
That member knows as anyone who lives in British Columbia knows, when you start to talk about the economics of links there is a lot more. This is coming from a person from Atlantic Canada where perhaps I might be criticized a little. However, there is a lot more economic sense in developing some of the plans to link the mainland of B.C. with Vancouver Island which is a high growth area of Canada than the sterile fixed link in an area that does not have as much growth.
I give full credit to the members who spoke from Hillsborough, Egmont and Cumberland-Colchester-a colleague of mine from Nova Scotia who has been doing a great job from his point of view-in making sure the
fixed link comes forward and gets into the House and through the House into creation.
I point out to all those people, especially to my friend from Cariboo-Chilcotin who was not here at the time, that there is another sham around here. It is not just the sham in dollars that every taxpayer has the right to ask about. The member from Hillsborough should not complain that members have raised questions about the fixed link because taxpayers are involved.
There is a great shell game on the cost of the subsidy that is supposed to pay for the bridge. Even the studies the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin mentioned show the big difference between the subsidy actually being paid out and the subsidy being computed to help Strait Crossing build the bridge, supposedly without any taxpayers' dollars.
Mention was made of the ferry workers and where they are going to fit into it. Well, we can talk about other aspects of this matter in terms of the fish stocks and the fish beds that are going to be affected but there is another sham here.
One of the times the matter of the fixed link was on the floor of the House and had a little flurry of activity was back in the sixties. There is a member from Moncton here whose mother was the member from Moncton and has a gold-plated shovel. Perhaps it is appropriate to have a shovel when talking about the fixed link. However she actually helped dig the foundation of the causeway around Moncton. All the studies up until that time had the causeway as the answer to join up P.E.I.
You can go to Moncton today. You can travel down there in the summertime. You can go over on the ferry. You might have to wait a while, but at least you have the character of an island. You will not get this Coney Island fixed link where people are going to build their substations and their offices on the mainland, scoot over to the island, do their little business and then scoot off.
Anne of Green Gables is going to become the ghost of Cavendish beach if this fixed link goes through. Even the Japanese will not be hoodwinked into visiting the character of the Island and staying a few days and making-
June 10, 1993

well, not making love, but in effect getting acquainted with Anne of Green Gables, and certainly getting excited by Lucy Maude Montgomery and her story. What are they going to do now? They are going to take their diesel buses we see outside the House of Commons and they are going to diesel onto the Island, shake hands with Anne of Green Gables and get off the Island before the sun goes down. That is what might happen.
There is a sham in the figures. There is a sham about politics. Perhaps I can understand the government's point of view to get the bill through. That is another thing. Perhaps in an election government candidates will say they are doing this and maybe other candidates too, but I just do not know if that is going to work.
What really bothers me about this whole aspect regardless of some of the rhetoric that I have used in these few minutes is that Canadian taxpayers have been inundated-look at poor Premier Bob Rae, look at any premier you want-with fiscal restraint. The thing about fiscal restraint is we are not supposed to have megaprojects.
In an interesting article in The Financial Post Diane Francis is starting to question equalization. I read it and I hope to get a letter off to Diane Francis because she certainly forgot a little history.
The Rowell-Sirois commission said that Atlantic Canada deserves equalization to help offset the high tariff policy that built up industry in Ontario. There was a fellow named C.D. Howe who killed the shipbuilding industry in Atlantic Canada and took it up the St. Lawrence River to the Saguenay because they were afraid of German U-boats. There are those types of things in history and Diane Francis did not really get into them.
My concern is with the good sincere Canadians, taxpayers all, from coast to coast who with equalization helped Atlantic Canada address some of its problems because it does not have the economic growth. Would they agree to look at a fixed link? I think this might be the last straw. In effect Canadians, all taxpayers who have good projects in their areas, are going to ask why we are building a billion dollar bridge which was not part of the study, as other members have said. Tb be frank, as far as I am concerned, if we are going to have a fixed link,
Government Orders
build a tunnel. However, I do not know what the cost of that would be.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are giving me the high sign that I have one minute left. Seriously, as a federal member of Parliament, I sympathize with my colleagues from P.E.I. as members of Parliament. I understand the division on the Island.
However, I am very concerned in this time of fiscal restraint that taxpayers are going to wonder about the credibility of a government that goes ahead with this type of project. All over the land they see local projects not as big as a billion dollar bridge, but other projects be they in the cities or the country, be they day care or helicopters, and they wonder: How can a government go ahead after all the talk about a fixed link from Confederation on and at this time build a fixed link?
That will have implications for Atlantic Canada which makes it important for Atlantic Canadians to know about some of the shams in this bill.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-126, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are three motions in amendment at the report stage of Bill C-126, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act.

June 10, 1993
Government Orders

Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, although presented as clause 2, clearly takes the form of a preamble, even using the same wording as a preamble. Paragraph 705 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne states that it is not permissible to add a preamble to a bill by way of amendment. I must therefore declare Motion No. 1 inadmissible.

Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motion No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Moncton, will be debated and voted on separately.

I shall now propose Motion No. 2 to the House. MEASURE TO AMEND


Ms. Clancy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When you come to Motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Moncton, I understand there is unanimous consent to allow me to move that amendment in his absence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Halifax to move the amendment when we come to Motion No. 3?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby) moved:: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-126 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 25 on page 3 the following:
"(2.1) Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, no person engaging in the conduct outlined in subsection (2) shall be deemed to have been acting without lawful authority if the conduct occurred at or outside a workplace during a labour dispute."
She said: Mr. Speaker, during the clause-by-clause debate on this bill there was some discussion around removing legitimate labour disputes from this bill. I am pleased to have an opportunity to discuss this once again in the House as I reworded the amendment.
When the witnesses appeared at the legislative committee on Bill C-126, many of them recommended that legitimate labour disputes be exempted from this bill. The Government of Ontario, the Canadian Labour Congress, the National Union of Public and General Employees, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, METRAC, the National Association of Women and the Law, the Criminal Lawyers' Association and the Canadian Bar Association stated that the provision was too broad and could potentially apply to labour disputes.
My colleague from Mission-Coquitlam found the Library of Parliament's research branch had issued a paper arguing that the bill as presently drafted could very possibly be used in labour disputes.
There are examples of how particular actions can be excluded from a bill of this kind. In New Jersey, California and other American jurisdictions anti-stalking laws specifically exempt legitimate labour disputes. We must remember that there is already legislation on the books to deal with intimidation, threats or violence that may occur during a labour dispute. These provisions already exist.
In the absence of any statement within this new law of what its purpose is, I am concerned that in legitimate labour disputes, in some jurisdictions, authorities may attempt to use this law to intimidate those engaged in what is legal activity.
I proposed a similar amendment at the legislative committee but unfortunately it was voted down. I sincerely hope that since members of this House have had time to reflect on the importance of this amendment, they will see fit to support it this time.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I have not changed my mind about the appropriateness of having this in the bill. I would ask the House to turn down the suggestion and vote against the motion as proposed by the hon. member.
If we look closely at the wording, it says among other things that "no person shall be deemed to have been acting without lawful authority if the conduct occurred at or outside a work place during a labour dispute". It would have the effect of completely removing any labour
June 10, 1993

dispute from the criminal harassment sections. I think that would go too far. Even though for the most part union activity is lawful and conducted according to provincial laws, I do not think Canadians would want a blanket exemption.
It would mean that no matter how much a person was harassed and had reasonable cause to fear for his safety during a labour dispute he would be unable to avail himself of the criminal harassment provisions. I should point out that not all labour dispute activity is lawful. This amendment would make a violent, illegal strike into a lawful labour dispute activity.
I think it goes too far. I can think of all kinds of different areas of activity in Canada that would have as much claim to an exemption as this. I do not think most Canadians would like to make an exception to the criminal harassment provisions no matter how much they believe in union activity and the rights of unions to strike and picket.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby. I congratulate her on her private member's bill which led the government to finally open its eyes and realize how desperately we need this kind of legislation in Canada to protect women from fear. It will also protect women from well-founded fear of violence when they have been stalked. Until now they have really had no recourse and have never been taken seriously by this Parliament, the law, law enforcers and the community.
I very much support this bill. I want to make that absolutely clear. As a woman in Canadian society I resent being afraid. I resent having to change my activities. As a woman in public life I resent having to be even more concerned about ensuring that I take precautions to walk, move and live in this country in a safe way. I resent the fact that I, or any woman in this country should be in a position where we often feel fearful, look over our shoulders and wonder just what is going on in terms of whether someone is unduly watching, following or stalking, under the definition in this bill.
I want to speak today about this amendment. I refer to the comments made by my colleague opposite, the previous speaker, who said he had concerns about this amendment so he has changed his mind about it. The
Government Orders
member might want to look at the original amendment given in committee by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby that the government voted against in committee. It was not as broad as this amendment but this amendment had to be worded more broadly to have it accepted by the House as an amendment today.
The hon. member talked about the fact that he did not want to see a wide open situation created where violent illegal strikes would be given a blank cheque. Right now we have a situation where non-violent legal strikes are forced into becoming violent legal strikes through lack of support and protection for those on the picket line. Therefore, I think it is stretching the imagination and certainly catering to those who would like to see no rights for trade unions and workers on the picket line to say this kind of an amendment would create a situation where violent, illegal strikes could take place.
There is already legislation on the books that outlines and determines the legality of picketing and what is legal or illegal on the picket line. Let us take one tiny step beyond the legalities and niceties and talk about how this bill, which is designed to protect women and everyone in this country from stalkers, can be used against workers when they take legal economic action against their employers.
I have been told on a number of occasions and certainly we have been told in the Library of Parliament document and the research that was done for us there is a good possibility that this bill could be interpreted and used as a threat over the heads of those on legal picket lines. Many people have told me that a Crown attorney would never proceed with charges regarding a picket line under this bill but I am not talking about charging people. I am talking about using this bill to threaten and intimidate people on legal picket lines. I am talking about being charged by an RCMP officer or a city police officer while on a picket line.
Quite possibly the Crown attorney would never proceed with the charges, but using this bill, making those threats on the picket line and even charging people on the picket line create fear and a situation where people who are going about very legal business in this country under the law can be intimidated into abandoning their very legal picketing.

June 10, 1993
Government Orders
We are talking about threats here. We are talking about a bill where we are trying to eliminate threats to Canadians and situations where Canadians are threatened. We refuse to look at other jurisdictions that already have this bill and have experienced the results and benefits of this kind of bill.
In the United States numerous states have exempted trade unions from this bill and it is not a country that has the kind of respect for the labour movement we have here. We are talking about trade unions going about the legal business of picketing in a legal dispute. We are not giving a blank cheque for people to run amok here. We are talking about legal picketing. It is the right of all workers in this country to withdraw their labour and not have a bill like this hanging over their heads intimidating them so they will abandon their right to strike or picket.
I urge this House to really think about what it is doing. The government is introducing a law in the dying hours of this Parliament, unfortunately without the kind of discussion with Canadians and particularly women we would have liked to have had.
It is a law we need and a law we all believe we need, but by giving rights and protection for the common good of Canadians we are insidiously creating a threat to a very large group of people in this country. One-third of Canadian workers are organized and we are taking away the right for them to go about their legal business as trade unionists and use their legal rights for their own economic benefit and pursue collective agreements.
I urge members opposite to once again consider the amendment put forward by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby and approve this amendment.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief remark on this.
I begin by commending everyone who has been involved in developing this legislation, particularly the member for New Westminster-Burnaby who initiated this process through a private member's bill. Many citizens, some of them in my riding, initiated this process by lobbying me as a member of Parliament and other
members of Parliament and levels of government to do something about the vulnerability of women in particular to stalkers.
We have had a severe problem in Winnipeg in the last little while with this and a number of women have been killed by stalkers. The people of Winnipeg know only too well the urgency of the legislation we have before us.
It is nice to see that sometimes Parliament can act with a certain amount of expediency. I hope the government will see fit to accept the amendment that has been moved in order to make it clear that this bill cannot be used for purposes of intimidation in labour disputes. I think the Criminal Code deals adequately with those possibilities in other ways.
Even if that is not the case, it is still well and good that we should pass this legislation. It is an improvement on what we have. I think particularly of a woman in my riding, Mrs. Jensen, whose daughter was killed by her boyfriend after she had been harassed for quite a while. I know she will be happy today to see that the political process does work and that we are able to pass this kind of legislation. I hope it will prevent those kinds of tragedies in the future.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 2 negatived.
June 10, 1993


Mary Catherine Clancy: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-126 be amended by adding immediately after line 16 at
page 13 the following:


REVIEW OF ACT
[Stage Direction]
"19. (1) A comprehensive review of the provisions of this Act shall be undertaken by December 31, 1998, by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within a year after the review is undertaken or within such further time as the House of Commons may authorize, submit a report on the review to the House including a statement of any changes the committee recommends."
She said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment builds into the legislation a five-year review clause.
I want to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Moncton, for his private member's bill in this area and also for bringing forward this amendment. The reason for this, among other things, is the concern about the lack of consultation.
I would like at this point to commend the work done in the legislative committee by the chair, by the parliamentary secretary, by the NDP status of women critic. All members worked together to try to create the best bill we could in this area. I think one thing we may have forgotten at the committee stage was the possibility of a five-year review.
This is not an unprecedented move in this House. There have been review clauses in other bills. I am thinking of the legislation on prostitution on the civil side. The Employment Equity Act was subject to a five-year review.
I have been asked why five years when certain other bills have had three years or thereabouts as a review. The reason for the five years in this particular case was the probable necessity for a case on this matter to filter its way through to the highest court in the land. Five years seemed a reasonable compromise in that case.
I merely suggest that this might be something that could give us an opportunity to redress some of the ill feeling arising from the lack of consultation. I would ask for the support of the House on this amendment.
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this motion, which calls for a statutory review of the bill.
Government Orders
There is the potential that five years down the road we will see some difficulties with the bill because of the way it is worded or the way that the wording is interpreted. In fact one of the government amendments that added to the bill the words "in all the circumstances" I am concerned may serve only to confuse the issue rather than clarify it. The amendment that is proposed would give us the opportunity to correct the legislation as we watch how it is interpreted by the courts.
I hope that whatever government is in power at the time would then engage in a full consultation rather than the process we have gone through here in trying to rush the bill through within a few days, and actually rush amendments through within a few short hours.
I am concerned that down the road we may have women coming to us saying that the bill is not as effective as it could be because of the way it has been interpreted or the lack of enforcement around the bill. We may be told that because criminal harassment is a hybrid offence, because of the way the bill is currently worded with no minimum penalties for repeated offences, that the men who are harassing these women are still stalking them because all these offenders received was probation or a small fine. I am concerned that more women may die.
Down the road we may have the labour movement coming to us with examples of where this legislation was misused to intimidate those who are engaged in legitimate labour disputes. It is clear that the government is not willing to move on some of the more serious flaws that some of us have identified in the bill.
For instance, it moved on the question of intent but not in the way recommended by the Government of Manitoba. The wording of the Government of Manitoba on this was explicit and very clear. It would have made it a crime to engage in harassing conduct which causes another person to reasonably fear for their safety.
This would be a crime of general intent where one must address the issue of intending to engage in the conduct. It is simpler and more direct than adding the test of knowing the other person is harassed or proving recklessness.
In a rather typical case which took place in Toronto, a woman was harassed by an ex-boyfriend for six months. She would stop at a restaurant, he would walk in and sit at the next table. She would go shopping, he would be lurking around. She would try to sleep at night and he would be banging on her doors and windows in a rage. She found notes on her car, on utility poles, on bus

June 10,1993
Government Orders
shelters from him wanting her to take him back. He thought that he had the right to control her.
The police for a very long time did not take this behaviour seriously. Everything he did was well within a defence that he did not intend to harass her. He could say he did not know he was harassing her. He did not know of the risks that he would be harassing her. All he wanted to do was to express his love, so he could get back with her.
If that mental element cannot be proven, he can be acquitted even though her life and movements have been seriously curtailed by his controlling her and her fear for her safety. The problem is engaging in conduct that causes another person to fear for their safety. Proving the attention to engage in the contact should be the issue rather than proving knowledge that the other person feels harassed.
The government addressed the concerns about reasonable fear by adding to the bill "in all the circumstances" but I do not believe that this makes the bill clearer at all.
The committee stage of this bill was a rush process. It was pushed through in undue haste. The whole process of clause by clause was only a few hours.
Most of my amendments were defeated, including one to provide minimum penalties for repeat offenders and an exemption for labour disputes which was turned down again today. I proposed other amendments that were recommended by women's organizations, by provincial governments, such as the removal of the word "reasonable" and the addition of "lawful authority or purpose".
As well, I proposed an amendment to the child witness portion. The bill reads that "if so ordered a child and a support person cannot communicate with each other during testimony". If a very frightened five-year old child who has been sexually assaulted and is now in a court room surrounded by strangers in a very intimidating area, turns to the support person and says: "I am scared. I want to go home", this might give the defence counsel grounds to throw out the case.
The problem is not the child communicating with the support person or the support person nodding or passing
a Kleenex. That is not the problem. What the bill is trying to get at, and what my amendment clarified, is that the support person should not communicate with the child in order to lead the testimony.
I am glad that in response to one of my amendments the government withdrew clause 7 of its bill on spousal conspiracy. More efforts need to be put into educating the judiciary about violence and control in spousal relationships to ensure that abused women are not revictimized by charges of conspiracy.
However I was generally disappointed that this bill was brought forward so late and that we did not have the time to review it very thoroughly to ensure that what we are doing is what we really want to do as parliamentarians.
Otto Von Bismarck once said that if you like sausages or if you like laws, do not watch either being made. I think that is quite appropriate in this case.
The consultation on the child protection portions of the bill was deemed to be adequate by child advocates. There was contact with the concerned organizations over many years and the justice committee has been reviewing the implementation of Bill C-15 which addresses some similar issues.
The consultation around the stalking portion unfortunately was very minimal and inadequate and I believe we have the potential to see problems arise because of it.
I hope that all members will support this amendment to review the bill after five years. I think it is important. It will give parliamentarians and the public at large a mandated opportunity to examine how the bill has been interpreted.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, let me give a couple of comments with respect to the whole process by which this bill is before Parliament.
It has been my experience with all the changes we have made to the Criminal Code, that among other criticisms directed at us, we are told that either we are too slow in bringing in the legislation or we are rushing the legislation. It is usually one or the other.
June 10, 1993

I do not apologize for either the timing or the number of bills before this Parliament. If we look at the five years of the 34th Parliament I would be surprised, and I think I am correct in saying this, there has not been one month that this House has not been seized with justice legislation, all of it designed to make this country a better and safer place in which to live, all of it I believe bringing much needed improvement to the criminal justice process. So I do not apologize for it at all. I am very pleased and honoured to have been part of it.
With respect to the present bill I am delighted that Parliament is seized with this issue. Not less than a month ago I presented a petition from 6,400 individuals, mainly from the city of Niagara Falls but throughout the Niagara peninsula, calling upon Parliament to bring in anti-stalking legislation.
Hon. members can say: "You should have waited. You should have postponed this to the fall. You should have conducted the committee hearings this summer. You should have done a lot of things". I can say from my point of view I am delighted that we are here, that we are doing this, that Parliament is discussing it this afternoon. This is a good improvement to the law. It builds upon this government's commitment to do something about violence directed against women and children.
I mention children. Quite frankly the provisions that allow us for the first time to ban convicted child molesters from hanging around parks and from participating in voluntary organizations like the Boy Scouts and Big Brothers were not mentioned enough during the committee process. Convicted child molesters can now be banned from participating in those organizations. I think that is great.
This is in combination with the child pornography bill that is also before Parliament. I hope and pray that can get through Parliament as well. This month of June 1993 is a bad month for child molesters in Canada. I am very proud and very determined and make no apologies to anyone for the course we are on.
With respect to the amendment the hon. member mentioned, I can appreciate that every piece of legislation as proposed at the committee stage will be reviewed in three or five years. I wonder whether it is necessary on two counts.
Government Orders
I believe the Access to Information Act was mentioned by one hon. member. It was a completely new change to the parliamentary system. I can see the logic of building in a three or five-year review process. With respect to the child abuse sections it was a fundamental change as to the way we treat children in our criminal justice system, and there was a review process of that.
This legislation builds on what we have already done. The provisions with respect to children and the rules with respect to cross-examination build on Bill C-15. The provisions with respect to sexual harassment are an extension of the intimidation sections in the Criminal Code. For the most part this is not unique. This is not a break with the past. This is building on what we already have.
I have another concern with respect to this matter. I do not think we should have to wait five years or six years to do this type of thing. The Department of Justice monitors all the changes made by Parliament. It monitors them on a continuing basis.
For instance, when the Young Offenders Act came into effect in 1984 we did not wait five years to change it. I remember the minister bringing in amendments concerning fleeing young people and being able to publicize their names and faces for the first time. We did not wait for a five-year review of the Young Offenders Act. He brought it forth in 1985.
We did not wait another five years before we got into the business of changing quite substantially the test of whether a young person who has committed violent or dangerous crime should be moved to an adult court. I mean we were not tied into it.
I can see what would happen with this legislation. If in three or four years we start thinking that perhaps there were some modifications we would make, the argument we will be met with will be that a parliamentary committee will be looking at it within the year. It has another year to report and then Parliament might be seized with it. That would act as an impediment. That may slow down the process. In the example I gave with respect to the Young Offenders Act there was no waiting five years if we believed there was a flaw.
I can tell the House that the department and all parliamentarians will watch very closely how this piece of legislation works. I do not think there should be any impediment, moral, legal or otherwise, to our changing it again. We have changed it. As I said we have changed the

June 10,1993
Government Orders
Criminal Code many times since we have become the government. I think all the changes were in the right direction. We were not tied into a process whereby we were waiting five years and then one year for the parliamentary committee to report and then having the government seized with making changes.
I would ask the House to turn this amendment down.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will just make a very short comment on this amendment because I think a couple of other members want to speak.
I know the parliamentary secretary wants to move the matter along. Quite frankly I may surprise the parliamentary secretary because my objection to the amendment really was the five-year period. I have the greatest respect for the member for Halifax who moved the amendment for the member for Moncton.
I was involved in legislation when I sat on the other side where there were review procedures under the National Transportation Act. I think it was three years. I was bothered by the five-year period. I listened quite seriously to the parliamentary secretary. I frankly think he makes a good case.
It is a new bill. I commend the member from Westminster who the member for Winnipeg Transcona mentioned. I was here when she introduced her private member's bill. I have concern as other members have mentioned-she certainly did in her thoughtful speech- about this legislation because there were some serious issues involved in it.
Other interest groups outside the House have raised serious questions but I tend to agree with the parliamentary secretary. We know there is an issue. All members want to try to resolve this horror of stalking people, basically women. I am not talking about children; they are stalked too.
There is not a member in the House who has not had some constituent in that type of situation. There is no doubt about it. We cannot get away from it. We try to equalize everything. There is emancipation of men and women. The fact of the matter is that with the law of the land and the way women are treated unfortunately by
some men they are still at a very real disadvantage in many ways.
Will the bill meet all the problems? Obviously there will still be some horrors occurring in our streets, towns and cities, but at least the bill is trying to address the problem.
I do feel a five-year review could very well be an impediment. I would hope the new government after the next election will be watching this matter. I do not think we will wait for the Supreme Court of Canada to decide five years down the road that it is an interesting time to review it. I tend to share the views of the parliamentary secretary.
Just briefly on the Young Offenders Act which is also included in the bill, I tell the House I have just had a questionnaire returned. The number of replies absolutely boggled my mind. I have sent out a few questionnaires in my term as a member. Never before have I had more returned and signed with the comment page filled with substance.
Some people do not think these questionnaires are even read. Other than members' pensions which get a real response from members, some of whom have tried to address it, one thing that surprised me was the reaction of the public on the need to reform the Young Offenders Act. I appreciate what the parliamentary secretary said. I was here when the Young Offenders Act came in. I was here in 1985 when the amendments came in.
In view of the horrors with young offenders and because of protection under that law, I am afraid the new Parliament better not wait for a year or two years but it better address the issue. It really has had a lot of response, certainly from my constituents. It is one of the consistent themes in the over 2,000 questionnaires I have received back.
Some may wonder about 2,000 questionnaires. I do not know how much experience some members have had, but I remember Pierre Elliott Trudeau in his heyday in 1968 sent out a questionnaire to his riding of Mount Royal of 50,000-plus and he received 760 back. He thought that was great. In my history, other than having sent out the last one, we get about 1,000 back. Just three years ago they did not even sign. There is always a little hook to get a constituent to sign so they can perhaps go
June 10, 1993

on a mailing list. What really impressed me was that over two-thirds signed and made substantive comments.
In conclusion the parliamentaiy secretary has a good point on the five-year period. TTiat is way too long. I hope it will weigh on the conscience of a new government to make sure it happens even quicker to meet the exigencies of the situation. The new Parliament had better address the Young Offenders Act because that is a scar on the conscience of society that has to be met.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate once again my strong support for the bill and to address the issue of a review.
It is ironic that the government party, my own party, has for some time, particularly when we were on the other side of the House, advocated reviews of legislation and sunset clauses in legislation.
At the same time our party in government has in fact instituted in some cases reviews after a period of time. I think particularly of the employment equity legislation which has provisions in it for a review, first of all after five years and subsequently a review every three years after that.
I had the honour and the privilege of chairing the review committee on the Employment Equity Act after five years. It was set up in accordance with the legislation which had a review provision that it was to be reviewed in five years. It was set up over a year ago. The committee brought in a review report in a relatively short period of time. It was set up in November 1991. It brought in its report in early May 1992. We have yet to receive a response from the government with respect to that review.
This points out the difficulties that we face when we do have these review provisions. I share the concerns of opposition members that we should have a review provision. However, I think as the parliamentary secretary has pointed out, even where we have reviews we know that there are difficulties actually implementing recommendations that the review has put before the government. There are instances though where the government has acted well before a five-year period to bring in amendments that do make sense and that are very effective.
I am not quite sure, based on my experience here with this question of a review, whether we are any further
Government Orders
ahead to put it in legislation or not. I think that if a review makes sense then it is going to happen. If it is just in there for the sake of having a review, as we have seen with the employment equity legislation, it can go on forever and we do not get any resolution in any event.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the amendment proposed today by the hon. member for Halifax. In doing so I wish to note at the outset that I, as do the rest of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus, support the bill itself. We are seeking here merely to provide for its eventual improvement.
The thing that must be borne in mind as we consider the merits of this amendment is that with this bill we are embarking on very fresh territory in Canadian law. We are moving into areas of conduct, behaviour and pathology that we have never before entered into through the Criminal Code. This being the case, prudence dictates that we monitor closely, and at some fixed time review the operations of the act. To fail to do so would be to abandon a responsibility that is placed on us precisely because this is so new an element in Canadian law.
I do not believe that any prudent government would allow the operation of this law without close scrutiny and indeed a formal review at some point following the coming into force of the law. However I must say that the current government has engaged in many activities that I would have thought no sane government would do.
To say that we should at this point sort of accept the fact that it is understood that this is a brand new departure and that in consequence we may simply rely on the government in its own good time and in its own good fashion, to undertake whatever review is necessary is a pleasant thought, but it is not one with which I am wholly comfortable. Rather I would suggest, as this amendment proposes, that we retain in this House the authority and the ability five years hence to undertake our own review of the operations of this bill.
Again I would suggest that simple prudence dictates this, especially given the questions and concerns that are still out among sections of the public regarding the bill. I think for example of the amendment proposed today by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby concerning labour disputes which has been defeated in this House. That concern is still there.

June 10, 1993
Government Orders
I think, as well, of the concerns that have been publicly and forcefully expressed by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women concerning the nature of the apprehension a woman must have under the current provisions of the bill.
Over time these concerns may prove warranted but we will not know that. We will not have any formal mechanism in place to review those questions and come to those conclusions in the absence of the amendment proposed here today.
I bear in mind that, although it is true this bill had all-party support in committee, it went through clause-by-clause study of this radically new departure in three hours. I know my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, proposed six amendments some of which were accepted. There was a raft of government amendments. But in three hours they tore through the bill in committee.
It may be that that is necessary. It may be that such times are required to get the bill through the House before we adjourn next week. If that is required, so be it.
However, even allowing that that haste is required, again I say that prudence dictates a fixed review. I commend the idea to the members of this House. Do not abandon that potentially extremely useful tool.
A review in five years will harm no one. It will cost comparatively little if anything and will give us a safeguard that any prudent House would wish to set in place.
Having said that let me conclude by saying that we wish Godspeed to this bill. We look forward to its coming into force as rapidly as possible because we know there is a stalking problem out there.
I do not believe there is a community in this country that has been left untouched by the terrible tragedy of women being murdered because they had the ill fortune at some point to be associated with an unbalanced, pathological male.
I know in my community this has happened more than once in and around the city of Edmonton. The most recent case that springs to mind included circumstances
where the woman was being stalked and her family went to the police and said: "This is happening. We need help". That help was not forthcoming.
It is hoped under this act that help will come. Nothing we do here can bring back to life those women who have been murdered in our communities. However it is hoped that what we do here today will prevent such murders in future.
We commend to the House this amendment. It is certainly our intention regardless to support the bill.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you might find unanimous consent of the House that at the conclusion of report stage the House proceed directly into the third reading stage of this bill.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I want to compliment the parliamentary secretary for having had some discussions beforehand. Certainly this did not catch this member by surprise.
This is the way a good many bills can be dealt with especially when there is such a need to fill a very obvious gap in our jurisprudence with all the problems that have been mentioned about whether in the hurry to do this before we break all those issues have been addressed.
However the reason I speak is that I commend the parliamentary secretary for doing it this way. I totally resent again the government House leader imposing Standing Order 78(1) during report stage and then moving to complete report stage and third reading all at once.
I know this is not the time to discuss that but I just want to compliment the parliamentary secretary. This is the way bills can move rather than using that tremendous gag of time allocation which makes a travesty of this place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to debate third reading after the concurrence motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.

)is

[DOT]?
June 10,1993


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 3 negatived.


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (for the Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that anytime there is an amendment to the Criminal Code and I have the honour to speak in the House then I would say it is a pleasure to speak. It truly is a pleasure to talk at the third reading stage of this bill.
I begin by thanking hon. members on all sides of the House for making it possible for this bill to get to third reading because I do believe that it is an important step forward in the Criminal Code. It is an important step forward for individuals who fear for their lives and their safety because of the unwanted attention that is sometimes directed at them.
I am pleased that the members of this House have agreed to move this piece of legislation. This is legislation that I think is very helpful and very important to children involved with the criminal justice system and children who are the victims of child molesters. There is considerable reason for this House and its members to be proud of the work they have done on this legislation.
Government Orders
A number of individuals and groups came before the legislative committee and indicated that they wished there were more time for consent. I would be less than honest if I said that I wished there were more time for consent. I can say that we are not bringing this legislation forward to be miserable or not to have a full discussion on this. There are certain realities we face. Among all the things and the pressures facing the minister, the government and parliamentarians, the process has been a reasonable one.
It was just three months ago that I was in Toronto and participated in various workshops concerning the prevention of crime. I can say that there were individuals there and I am sorry I did not take down their names and with what they were affiliated. However, they raised the matter of an anti-stalking legislation and indicated the things that we could be doing at the federal level to enhance public safety and to make better laws in this country. Certainly anti-stalking was one of them.
I mentioned at the report stage that I was the recipient of a petition in my own riding of Niagara Falls in which over 6,000 people, mainly women, said: "Look, this is an urgent problem. Parliament should bring forward legislation in this area".
I wish there had been lots of time for the parliamentary committee to study this. It was done in a couple of weeks. I do not agree that the clause-by-clause consideration was only three hours. I remember being there for most of the afternoon. We went from 3.30 p.m to about 6 p.m. and then we went again for several hours in the evening. I can say that I and other members were prepared to come back the following morning as well if there had been other amendments or other discussions.


Joy Langan: It was only three hours for clause by clause.


Rob Nicholson: Three hours? My own recollection of it is that we were there in the afternoon and the evening. If hon. members want to discuss it further, I wish we had the summer. I wish we could bring in people and everything else.
Having said that, I think this is good legislation. I believe it was well crafted and the committee process was a good one. I respectfully disagree with individuals

June 10,1993
Government Orders
who were before the legislative committee and threw up their hands and said they did not like what we were doing because they were not consulted.
Part of the consultation process is the legislative committees. Those who are backbenchers sometimes make speeches in which we say we want more involvement and influence. I truly believe the legislative committee process is a way of consulting people who are directly involved and have an interest in legislation and I think it can make a difference.
I have been on all the legislative committees in the justice area for the last nine years. I can think of only one or two pieces of legislation that were not changed at the committee stage. I think that is the way it should work. Whether a suggestion comes from a member of the government, a member of the NDP or the Liberals, I think we as committee members have a responsibility apart from any partisan considerations to have a look at it to see whether we can incorporate it.
Some good changes were made to this bill. I am not saying it was not a good bill. It was tremendous legislation and a tremendous step forward but I believed it could be improved at the committee stage.
I think anyone who wants to seriously and without partisan consideration have a look at what we did at the legislative committee will agree that this bill was improved and that is the way it should be. That is the way the parliamentary system should work for private members who give their time and become involved with pieces of legislation. I think it is good for the groups that appear before the committee.
The hon. members who sat on that legislative committee will remember that one of the last witnesses, Professor Bala, said a lot of interesting things to the committee. He asked why we were making a distinction on the question of uncorroborated evidence of children. It is a good question and I believe I know why that distinction was made. It is because it has taken Parliament a long time to come to grips with the question of children's evidence.
We made substantive changes with Bill C-15 several years ago but I think we are still clearing away some of the common law misconceptions about children testifying in court. There are presumptions that the testimony of children is suspect or that children will lie on the stand. I think this 19th century concept has been discredited.
When a man like Professor Bala comes before the committee and asks why that distinction is being made and why we do not remove any reference to corroborated or uncorroborated children's evidence, if it makes sense why should we not do it? That is a healthy process and the way committee works.
That is why I have complete confidence in this bill that was carefully drafted by the individuals in the Department of Justice under the leadership and direction of the Minister of Justice. This wonderful piece of legislation that makes this country a better place to live was substantially improved at the legislative committee process.
This bill sends out a message to individuals who want to lavish unwanted attention on others, usually women. In the vast majority of cases when we talk about stalking women are the victims and recipients of continuous and repeated unwanted attention. We have sent the message out to those individuals through the Criminal Code saying if they want to engage in that kind of activity, it is a criminal offence in Canada for which they can be charged and imprisoned.
I think the actual wording of the legislation is improved. This bill went to the legislative committee as what was known as a specific intent offence. Several individuals and members of the legislative committee agreed that instead of making it a specific intent offence we would make it a general intent offence.
Again, we widened the scope of the bill to send a message to those individuals that the kind of activity that is sometimes engaged in by one individual against another is not going to be tolerated in Canada.
We also heard people say there may be problems with the reasonable test. Traditionally in the English common law and the interpretation of the criminal justice system the test was that of a reasonable man. For the most part the victims of criminal harassment and stalking are women. Groups came forward and said they wanted to make sure there was not a reasonable man test. All the circumstances that might be faced by an individual had to be looked at.
One of the changes is that the fear the individual feels for his or her safety must be reasonable under all the circumstances. We are sending a signal to the courts to take into consideration the total place that person has in society and any fears and concerns he or she may have.


June 10, 1993

We are sending out the message to look at the whole package.
It was pointed out to us this is not the only part of it. I welcome people like Monica Rainey and others who came before us and indicated that much of this bill deals with children and the problems they face with individuals who would sexually molest them. A lot of the legislation is directed toward that.
We made changes in the committee. It was pointed out by a number of members, and there was an amendment from the member of the NDP who is in the House saying that the penalty for the individual who intends to commit a sexual offence with a child outside this country is inadequate. I agree. I think she was absolutely correct and individuals came before the committee and indicated that this penalty should be increased. That was done and I think that is good.
This bill is also bad news for child molesters. Those individuals who are convicted of child molestation can now find themselves subject to a prohibition order that can last for life that prohibits these individuals from going near public places and parks where children play. This was something most of us received material about.
It happened in British Columbia and it happens in other provinces where some of these individuals are going from job to job and there seems to be a gap in the law. Under this bill a person can be prohibited from employment that puts him or her in direct contact with children. Who can be against that? How many Canadians can say that is a bad idea? That is a step in the right direction.
We made another significant change at the committee. Someone said: "Never mind employment that puts people in contact with children. What about the individual who is convicted of molesting children and wants to get involved with the Boy Scouts, Girl Guides or Big Brothers?" We covered that possibility as well. We included the prohibition of participating in voluntary organizations and I believe that, too, is a step in the right direction.
I know other members of the House want to talk about this. This is a good day for Parliament. This is a good day
Government Orders
for the committee system of the House of Commons that good legislation can be made better.
It is a bad day for anybody out there who is in the business of molesting children because one standing committee of Parliament is dealing with the question of child pornography, making it a crime for the first time to possess child pornography and that is a good idea. This bill, and particularly that prohibition and some of the changes we made with respect to children giving evidence is bad news for people who are child molesters as well.
When this Parliament deals and comes to grips with such problems this Chamber once again, as it has throughout its history, brings honour upon itself and it makes me very proud to be a member of this House.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak ultimately in support of this much needed bill. I certainly add my voice to that of the parliamentary secretary's in that I think some very good work was done in committee. I said this earlier at report stage.
I might suggest to the parliamentary secretary with the greatest of respect that it is perhaps a little soon to wax lyrical on how this bill, as active legislation, will assist in the matter. It is certainly a much needed bill. There are things we had to have which is why my party is supporting this bill today, but to suggest in any way that it may be flawless is to miss the point of legislation. Unfortunately none of us is blessed with the ability to create flawless legislation and this bill certainly has its flaws.
First and foremost however is the need for the legislation. It really is unnecessary to articulate the horrors surrounding the stalking bill and the need for a stalking bill. There have been deaths in almost every province and region of this country. We heard from attorneys general, police officers and various other sundry groups that those deaths could have been prevented with legislation such as this.
There were imperfections in the process. First and foremost, a major imperfection was the lack of consultation. I am going to address that in a few minutes when I talk about the responses of women's groups in this country to this bill.

June 10,1993
Government Orders
There were other imperfections. Those of us on this side of the House were concerned at the tying together of the provisions relating to child abuse, particularly child sexual abuse, and the whole idea of the stalking amendments to the Code, the criminal harassment sections. I am really not imputing motive to the government. I can only say that my own reaction to this was that I was concerned we might be trying to pit the rights and needs of women against the rights and needs of children.
I think everyone will agree with me that in general, women are the primary care givers of children in this country, not always and in every case but in the vast majority of cases. There is something in every woman, whether she happens to be the primary care giver of a child or not, that distresses us to see even the suggestion of the rights of children put up in trade with the rights of women.
Again I compliment the parliamentary secretary and the government on the fact that they were most amenable in general on a number of the amendments which made the bill palatable and passable.
We have to be on our guard when dealing with these areas and particularly the areas that go so viscerally to the way we regard ourselves as a country, think about the protection of the weak and the need for true equality and true justice. We must put these bills in their proper places and not make the mix too varied to make it unpalatable at a future time.
To get back to the stalking provisions in particular, we are talking about a bill that goes after what can only be called fears of injury and death in the minds of far too many women in this country.
One question I posed to a number of witnesses during the committee stage of this bill was whether any bill was better than no bill, given the criticisms of the bill previous to its amendment. The response from all but the most vociferous critics was that yes, probably any bill was better than no bill.
I think we have a better bill than just any bill. However it goes to the root and seriousness of this problem that activists and advocates for women would say that any bill is better than no bill.
Let me talk just briefly about the criticisms of women's groups. I agree with my hon. colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby that the time was too short. I am going to articulate the criticisms made by women's
groups, many with which I agree and a few with which I do not.
However I have to say that I was disappointed last Saturday by the reaction of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and in particular its new president. I congratulate its new president, Sunera Thobani. However I think there is a difficulty that needs to be articulated here.
Feminism and the women's movement is not monolithic. We can disagree and we clearly do. There are five political parties in this House and there are feminists in four of them anyway. That was probably an unfair shot-


Rob Nicholson: There are some in the NDP.


Dawn Black: Don't forget about me.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I have not forgotten the member at all. She is the hope to my left. The point that has to be made is that within the feminist movement we do disagree. We disagree on process, even if we do not disagree on goals.
I was disappointed because good and hard work was done by members of all three parties to try to make this better. I do not think there is any question from the members of the committee, or from members of this House, that the work done in that committee was done by the participants in good faith.
I have to say quite frankly that having been a member of that committee when I heard the president of the National Action Committee say that she was not going to support it my first response was that I had not seen the final draft of the amended bill even though I worked on it. Therefore, I wanted to know how someone who had not seen the final draft of the bill could be so certain that it was unworthy of passage.
I want to particularly deal with the criticism that it is similar to the American bills dealing with the stalking of movie stars. First of all, just because a woman happens to be a star of a soap opera or a film or is a famous woman does not make her any less vulnerable in a great number of ways.
I am thinking of that young television actress. She is no less dead because she was famous. A man came to the door of her house after stalking her and killed her on her own front doorstep. There is an actress who used to be in a soap opera in New York who can no longer work in the entertainment industry because of the actions of a stalker. She is in hiding because of what this man has done to her.
June 10, 1993

Our bill bears little or no resemblance to those American bills. Obviously there are similarities because we are dealing with similar problems, but this is not what we are looking at here. We are looking at what happens to ordinary people in Canada when they are faced with a stalker. The vast majority of ordinary persons in Canada who are faced with stalkers are women, not always and not in every case, but certainly the vast majority. I think that criticism was unfair and unfounded.
There are a couple of criticisms however that were not unfounded. The first is consultation, and I mentioned it before. To a degree the government probably now realizes that it did make a mistake on this. Certainly the consultation process on Bill C-49 created a good feeling, a good sense of support, and all the things we needed to bring forth what was in Bill C-49, which was good legislation as well. It was not perfect but good.
The precedent had been set for the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, who was then the Minister of Justice. I understand she is involved in something else over these next few days. I congratulate the current Minister of National Defence for that consultative process.
I understand why the women's groups were angry and why they felt left out. The front line workers asked: "Why did you not talk to us?" It was a mistake.
However, given the fact that a number of people continue to say we need this bill, such as the assistant deputy attorney general of Manitoba, the attorney general of Ontario, various police associations, the Canadian Bar Association and all kinds of witnesses who came before us, was the lack of consultation sufficient to jettison the bill?
No, it was not. It was a mistake but women, in particular, in this country need this bill. Therefore we should not go to the root of the matter and say we must go back to square one. I would hope in future that any and all governments would reinstate the consultative process but it should not kill this bill.
Government Orders
I am going to get a bit into technical legal arguments. I worry about this because there is a tendency for people with law degrees to sound pompous but I am certain that my colleagues will-


Mrs. Gaffney:: Never.


Fred J. Mifflin: Never.


Mary Catherine Clancy: The hon. members for Nepean and Bonavista-Trinity-Conception have both reassured me, and neither one of those hon. members are lawyers.
The question of the preamble was one that was brought forward by a number of women's groups because the preamble sets out the intention of the legislation. They were particularly concerned about the specific fears and circumstances of women.
I understand that concern absolutely. I understand it to the very marrow of my bones because I know what it is like. I have represented hundreds of women who were hard done by in the legal system in a variety of manners. I understand that.
Martin's Annual Criminal Code of Canada comes out every year with all the amendments to the code. This one does not yet have the amendments as a result of Bill C-49. That will be in next year's Criminal Code.
Bill C-49 had a preamble but it is only the bill. It is only in the paper we have here that Bill C-49 includes the preamble. When Bill C-49 goes into the Criminal Code the preamble will not be there.
Consequently, when lawyers, defence or prosecution, and judges are sitting in the courtrooms of the land looking at this bill, looking at the amendments, then even if we had created a preamble it would not have made it into the Criminal Code. The odds on its affecting the judicial process are slim and none.
Second, part of the way trials are conducted and the legal process works in a courtroom is that we cannot cite a preamble. We can only cite the body of the bill. My consequent prejudice with regard to every one of these things is that we should not waste them in a preamble. If we want to say it then we should say it in the body of the bill.

June 10,1993
Government Orders
The question of intent was very difficult. The amendment came through and the burden of proof has been considerably lessened by the addition of "knowing or recklessly". There is no question that it is difficult to prove intent. Elowever if we take intent out in every way there is also no question that judges will infer intent based on the conduct of the accused and the fact that there is a concept of a mental element in almost every offence, and certainly offences of this nature.
The fact that we have the concept of recklessness in this bill will go a long way toward dealing with this problem. In criminal law we generally do not know how things are going to work until they are tried and interpreted and until they are judicially noted.
Professor Nicholas Bala told the committee that eliminating intent altogether means that the courts will then say that because there is this view that one can never be convicted of an offence without any kind of intent then they will say that the intent is that of causing reasonable fear and then we will have to show that the person intended to cause reasonable fear. That will be more difficult to prove than the amendment that we brought in.
The clause in section 2 of the bill as it now stands, with the amendment we made, is a far better situation than we had in the beginning. It will be easier but it will not be perfect. There will still be problems but the bill now reads: "No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed, or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in the conduct referred to in subsection 2".
It is not perfect but it is better. It goes a long way toward addressing the questions that were raised by women's groups in this particular area.
Then we have the question of reasonableness. This is again a bit of a lawyer's argument because those of us who suffered through law school have a tendency to be wedded intellectually to the reasonable test.
I can remember, and I brought this up at the press conference when the bill was introduced, when on my first or second day in law school a professor spoke about the reasonable man test. When the heads of the 20 women in the class all snapped up he immediately
amended it, being a lawyer and knowing which way the wind was blowing, to the reasonable person test. In too many of our courts the reasonable person is still the reasonable man. That is a bona fide fear on the part of women who will have to go before the courts in this country.
They know it. They have seen it and there is nothing that anyone can say that is going to make it better because we know it is true. It is just like the old law about a husband and wife being one person at law, and that one person was the husband. It was not the wife. It was the husband.
What can we do to change this? There are a number of things we can do. Unfortunately most of them cannot be done in this bill because enforcement and the judicial process are not things that we can legislate easily. One of the things is mandatory gender sensitivity training for judges. I merely raise it. I know it is not in the bill but I have such a knee-jerk reaction to this sort of thing that I have been raising this for four years in this Chamber so I am going to raise it one more time.
No less a personage than Madam Justice Wilson has called for this and so have a lot of other lesser lights in this country, one of the least being myself. I keep being told over and over again that it is impossible. No it is not. It is not impossible. This Chamber could do it with the political will. Right now, the judicial institute in this country offers good gender sensitivity training forjudges. It is good stuff. Sixty per cent of federally appointed Canadian judges have availed themselves of this training. In those courts one can see the difference. Forty per cent have not. In those courts one can see the difference too.
What do we do? I actually had one person say that they will die some day. I do not think I can wait that long and I do not think that the women of Canada can wait that long. Unfortunately some of them are not at death's door.
The problem is that age is not an indication of a lack of sensitivity. The lack of sensitivity can be as rampant in younger judges as it is in older judges. There are many older judges who because of their life experience are a lot more sensitive to this issue. I can think of a couple of senior members of the bench, very senior members, who were among the first to sign up for this training. Before I go off on a complete tangent I would just like to say that if there is one thing that we should be doing to make
June 10, 1993

things better for women in this country it is mandatory gender sensitivity training for judges in the federal area.
The next question was the whole question of reasonableness. That was amended. As my colleague for New Westminster-Burnaby has said, it is not necessarily perfect. It sure is not. It will depend on the judges and how they will interpret this. What it now says is: "No person shall without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed, or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection 2 that causes that other person reasonably" and the amendment adds "in all the circumstances to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them".
Is "in all the circumstances" sufficient? I do not know. I hope so. The problem is that we are going to have to depend to some degree on judicial discretion but "in all the circumstances" opens the door for the use of expert testimony called on behalf of the victim to talk about the circumstances relating to women.
One of the most common examples that has been used-it shows the utter insanity of stalkers and what they do-is the one ploy of sending flowers. Women have been inundated with roses or inundated with some other form of flowers. What has been in the history of the relationships between people who care for each other a symbol of romance, affection and all of these things becomes a symbol of horror, fear, domination and threat. It is clear that there are people whereby this "in all the circumstances" allows for testimony with regard to that kind of conduct. Is it enough? Again we do not know but we cannot at this stage of the game wait and see.
That is why I would have liked a review. That is why I still think a review is a good thing. However there are other ways that we can do the same thing. The bill obviously is amendable and this is what we are going to have to look at in the future if necessary. We are going to have to see whether or not "reasonable in all the circumstances" solves the problem.
I can say right now that if it does not solve the problem then every one of us here in this House is going to have to answer to the women's groups who have raised the question. We take in a sense a leap of faith because we want the best legislation we can get.
Government Orders
That in general deals with my concerns about this bill. In conclusion I merely want to say that the women of Canada need the protection of this bill. I hope to God it is enough. I know that many of us have worked hard to get to this point.
I too want to congratulate both the member for Moncton and the member for New Westminster-Burnaby for their private members' bills. This is one of the most serious problems facing our society today. We have to deal with it. We have to pass this bill. We have to hope that in other jurisdictions the sensitivity to enforcement will do something to ensure that women do not have to live in fear.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to speak on Bill C-126 which would introduce for the first time a law to punish criminal harassment or stalking and which also takes legislative measures to prevent child abuse.
I now have a very thick pile of letters about stalking. The letters are mainly from women across Canada who have told me and told other members of this House that they want a stalking law. Some of these letters are from women who have been stalked. Some are from the families of women who have been threatened, incessantly harassed, beaten and terrorized. Terrorism is not too strong a word to use to describe the kind of behaviour that these women have been subject to.
I also have a large file of letters from particularly people from British Columbia who support the child abuse provisions of this bill. I know the parliamentary secretary mentioned earlier Monica Rainey and the organization that she is involved with, Citizens Against Child Exploitation. They have been very influential in raising the awareness of all members of Parliament about the issues behind these portions of the bill that deal with children.
Earlier, the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants talked about the response that he received to a mail out that he had done in his community. My New Democrat colleague, the member for Surrey North, did a mail out to his community in which he received back 2,500 responses on this issue of stalking. As the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants said, they were full responses giving detailed accounts of their own personal experience and saying how strongly they supported at that time my private member's bill on the issue of stalking. Over

June 10, 1993
Government Orders
30 B.C. municipalities, including the cities of New Westminister and Burnaby in my own community, supported my anti-stalking private member's bill and wrote to the Minister of Justice and others in the House to indicate that.
My bill had a minimum penalty for repeat offenders and those who break restraining orders. I felt that provision was veiy important. I am sorry that my amendment was not passed through the committee stage. All too often the men who engage in this harassment and terrorism thumb their noses at the court right in the court. They are served with a restraining order. I have been told by family practice lawyers, Crown prosecutors and others in the criminal justice system that on receipt of being handed that restraining order or peace bond, many of them have said right there in court that it is not worth the paper it is printed on and it is not going to protect her one bit.
All too frequently they are speaking the truth. Consider when the Manitoba government came to the committee stage. In all the cases cited in Manitoba where women have been killed there was a restraining order prohibiting that person from continuing his actions of harassment and terrorism.
There has been discussion in the House at all stages of this bill around private members' bills that have been put into the House. The private member's bill that was put forward by the member for Moncton was a provision that actually would have made the situation less protective for women. It is important for it to be acknowledged.
Often when we are talking about legislation such as this Bill C-126 we must be veiy careful that the legislation we propose as government members, ministers and in private members' bills meets the needs we are trying to address and that it will make the situation better for the people we are attempting to protect.
I have a petition here today which has been signed by over 1,800 people in support of a stalking law. I just received these petitions. There is not time to put them through the process of the House of Commons to officially table them as petitions. They were collected in a very short time by Stephanie Whitehead from the Windsor area who has worked tirelessly to raise her community's awareness of this issue. I want to make mention that in a very short time 1,800 people signed
these petitions for an effective stalking law. It is indicative of the support that is out there in Canada at large in terms of supporting this legislation.
Criminal harassment or stalking and child abuse touch a chord I think within many of us. Some of these people are dealing with their own pain at having experienced this personally or have seen a family member or friend who has experienced this. Some are simply very concerned for others in our society and for the possibility that these issues may in future touch their own lives in a more personal way.
I very much support the provisions of the bill that are designed to facilitate child witnesses testifying and to replace the law on prohibition orders for convicted paedophilic sex offenders to prevent them from loitering around children. I presented two amendments to strengthen these sections. As the parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Justice said earlier, one of those amendments was passed at the committee stage. It was an amendment to raise the maximum penalty for intending to take a child outside the country to commit acts of violence, particularly sexual violence.
My unsuccessful amendment would have put the onus on the adult support person in a child sexual abuse case not to communicate with the child witness. The bill currently places equal onus on a frightened child of five or whatever who has been sexually abused not to communicate in any way with the adult even to say that perhaps they are scared and frightened and want to go home. I do not think this is in keeping with what the bill is intended to do. That is my concern on that issue.
In order for the bill to be effective it requires very effective education of police officers, Crown attorneys and judges about the issues of violence against women, criminal harassment, child abuse and about the equality rights of all women in our society.
As the member for Halifax said earlier, my fear is that without this kind of education the bill will be used inconsistently. I am concerned that the bill will be used inconsistently and will not be reflected in our court system the way all of us here in the House of Commons and all of us who worked on the committee stage of the bill want to see this enforced.

June 10, 1993

It is important to say that we also need financial support for shelters for battered women, rape crisis centres and funding for groups who advocate on behalf of abused women and children and who do a lot of the necessary education in their communities with an extremely low budget.
Some provincial governments are taking positive steps on violence against women. The New Democrat government in British Columbia has set up 80 new counselling services for women who are victims of violence. It has funded 11 new sexual assault centres and tripled the number of government funded centres in British Columbia. It has put $2 million into programs for aboriginal communities to end this kind of violence. It has instituted training programs for prosecutors, police, judges and service providers who work with these victims of violence. It has also instituted teacher training and a school curriculum to attempt to prevent violence. It has funded 145 new spaces in transition home shelters for women across British Columbia. It has given top priority in non-profit housing units for women who are leaving abusive situations and abusive partners. It has issued another directive to the police and to the Crowns in British Columbia to arrest and prosecute violent offenders to the fullest extent.
However, not every woman in Canada lives in British Columbia or in Ontario which has also taken steps to educate on these issues, and support women's centres, shelters and services and to prevent violence.
A Crown prosecutor in Montreal recently said that even under the proposed stalking law offenders will probably be charged by way of summary conviction which is accompanied by very short penalties. She said judges would be reluctant to hand out severe sentences for what they might consider to be normal behaviour. She said that many judges just think of such crimes as the pursuit of love.
In fact in the case of a man who broke a court order to keep away from his ex-girlfriend after being convicted of intimidating her, the judge told the woman: "You are going through what a lot of couples experience which is a domestic quarrel". He also said that the case was better suited to an afternoon talk show than to the courts.
Government Orders
Criminal harassment of women is just not taken seriously. One Montreal woman was telephoned incessantly, followed and watched at her apartment by her ex-boyfriend. In the period of one month she complained to the police almost daily about his repeated phone calls, his intimidation and a rock through her window. He threatened her but the police told her that there was nothing they could do. Before they could act he needed to say something like: "I will kill you". Earlier this month he did attempt to kill her by stabbing her six times with a knife.
This bill is trying to stop that kind of behaviour before it escalates into attempted murder and murder, but I do not believe the government has given the police and the courts the proper tools to do that because without education offenders will merely be given probation like the case of woman who was confined and sexually assaulted for nine hours. Her attacker was out on bail and stalked, intimidated and terrorized her. He received 15 months probation for that behaviour.
This bill does not change the police officer or the attitude of the people who will respond in the future to those kinds of complaints. It does not change the Crown prosecutor who decides whether a case is serious enough to pursue. It does not change the judge who thinks intimidation is an ordinary part of human relationships and a matter for the Oprah show rather than the courts.
A new law which gives the courts the option of sentencing a repeat offender to a light penalty is not going to deter these obsessive men who spend their time and money to make a woman miserable, but most importantly to control her life. This is what we are talking about in this legislation: another person who wants to have total power and control over another individual's life.
Sadly, these offenders laugh at our criminal justice system because they know that no one will do anything to prevent their behaviour.
I believe this law on criminal harassment is a step forward. I am pleased to be here debating this today. I am pleased to have been the member of Parliament from my political party who had the opportunity to sit in on the legislative proceedings. But we must all remind

June 10, 1993
ourselves that we are taking a small step forward today. It is an important step but it is just a small step forward. There are so many other things that have to be put in place in a holistic way to address these problems of violence in our society. The law simply will not do it.
Women of colour and immigrant women came to us and talked about how when they report assault or harassment they have been asked by judges if that is not just a part of their culture. They spoke about being harassed by the authorities rather than protected and felt a sense of revictimization.
The Disabled Women's Network came forward and talked about the problems that disabled women have in accessing the criminal justice system and how many disabled women are more vulnerable to violence and yet not believed.
Other national women's groups came forward. They did not support the bill in its wording and talked about the phrase "reasonable fear". They were concerned it might be used against women who could be put on trial. They gave the example of a woman who had undergone some kind of therapy in her personal life having that raised in the court to imply she really did not have it all together. Who would not have to undergo therapy if they had been subjected to the kinds of terror these women have been subjected to? Women's organizations were also concerned about lawyers for the defence saying these people suffer from false memory syndrome. This is being applied to children who were sexually assaulted and women who have been abused and assaulted.
I put forward an amendment in committee to remove the word "reasonable" but unfortunately I was the only one there who supported that amendment. I also put forward a number of amendments to remove the intent provision, exempt labour disputes and provide minimum penalties for repeat offenders. I am really disappointed that did not pass in view of the way these people continue to break those restraining orders, break those peace bonds, show no concern for the victim, show no respect at all for our system of justice or for Parliament and continue to thumb their noses at the courts.
I proposed an amendment to add a preamble to the bill which would explain the issue of criminal harassment. I
understand the member for Halifax who indicated there was no sense in doing this because it would not be printed in the Criminal Code. It would be there, however, for reference as it is in Bill C-49 in terms of judges, Crown attorneys who want to know what Parliament's intent really was in this legislation. It certainly would not have hurt anything. It was ruled out of order unfortunately.
I want to end with some stories from women who have been stalked. They capture the need for a strong, effective anti-stalking law.
One woman has been stalked for eight years. She wrote to me and said: "Being watched, followed, assaulted, vandalized, robbed, threatened with your life, harassed at school and at work is not romantic. It is a violation of one's rights and freedoms". She also said-


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Madam Speaker, as we all know, our party has recently been through a most stimulating and promising period of renewal, a most exciting exercise. This kind of situation, if Parliament is to work properly, requires tremendous discipline and, above all, a team of professionals that is truly out of the ordinary.
That is why today, as senior assistant to the Chief Government Whip, I would like to stress the exceptional job done by the team in the Whip's office, and I am referring to David, Pascale, Irma, Barbara, Brenda, Jean-Charles, Leo and Josee, who provided the continuity that is so essential to the work of parliamentarians. Our thanks to you all.
June 10, 1993


GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Madam Speaker, I believe that in the dying days of this government it is indeed the time to set the record straight.
After nine years with the Conservatives at the helm Canadians will not forget the legacy of this government.

It leaves an ever growing deficit; 1.6 million Canadians out of work; an alarming poverty rate which the government tries to camouflage with new criteria; 38 tax increases since 1984; attacks on our social programs and our quality of life; and Canada's regions abandoned as a result of cutbacks in funding for regional development.

This government's legacy is one of broken trust and lost hope. As one of my hon. colleagues has stated, under this government "the rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class got shafted".
This Prime Minister's record speaks for itself.


THE HON. MEMBER FOR LAC-SAINT-JEAN
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, on April 27, 1993, a man who was ambassador to Paris from 1985 to 1988, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean stated in this House: "A natural modesty has always prevented me from reporting on my tight management of the embassy in Paris. I was the most highly rated ambassador in Europe at the time for my management".
For the information of Canadian taxpayers, under Michel Dupuy, the operating budget for the mission in 1984-85 was $4.9 million. Under the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, in 1985-86 it was $5.6 million; in
1986-87; $7.4 million; in 1987-88; $8.4 million. .An increase of $3.5 million in three years, not including travel and entertainment expenses.
Today, as Moody's in New York lowers Quebec's rating, I would not blame Canadian taxpayers for being very "moody" if asked to give a good rating to our ambassador to Paris from 1985 to 1988, considering this 60 per cent increase over three years.


STANLEY CUP
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, as you can see I am very proud of this sweater. It represents greatness in hockey and a standard of excellence for all Canadians.
I had one like it when I was six years old but it was the thick woolly kind with a turtleneck that we wore at an outdoor rink when it was 20 below zero. I have loved this sweater ever since. One begins with two points just by having it on.
I must say, however, that I was not so proud of some fans who destroyed property and became violent last night. This is the 100th anniversary of the Stanley Cup and in that time six Montreal teams have won the cup 41 times, including the first time in 1893. The Canadiens have won it 24 times.

I want to congratulate Jacques Demers, the organization of the Canadiens and the great team itself, where all players are superstars. The Canadiens have brought the Stanley Cup home again!


CANADA SUMMER GAMES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, I would also like to give my congratulations to the Canadiens on an outstanding performance. However my statement is with regard to the following.
The great city of Kamloops has the honour of hosting the 1993 Canada Summer Games. For this privilege we thank the federal government for its generosity and for its demonstration of confidence in our citizens' ability to showcase this great Canadian event.

June 10,1993
These games are truly extraordinary. This summer two new exciting aspects of the games are included. Disabled Olympians will be participating for the first time and traditional aboriginal games will form an integral part of the competition. At the same time, Kamloops will host one of the largest Indian powwows in North America as well as a full-scale western rodeo.
The hosting of the games will include many dynamic communities throughout the Kamloops region, which is considered to be one of the most beautiful and pristine areas of all of Canada.
I urge all Canadians to join us this summer to support Canada's most outstanding young athletes who will be competing in Kamloops during the 1993 Canada Summer Games. Come and enjoy the games, our beautiful city and its region.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, let me tell the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace that we in the maritimes regard the Montreal Canadiens as a national institution and not just the sole claim of the city of Montreal.
Madam Speaker, you may remember all the soul searching that took place in the House of Commons about the merits of the UI changes. The NDP was really upset about terminating UI benefits to voluntary quitters, by most standards a common sense measure.
Now we know why. It seems the NDP has a cost-saving scheme in place courtesy of the UI program. The party pays the unelected leader for enough months to qualify and then the leader quits and receives UI benefits.
The NDP leader in Prince Edward Island thinks he can quit his post and receive UI, thus saving the party $4,000. However the money comes from the pockets of hardworking Canadians. The NDP says: "So what? We pay our premiums". This is a fine example for other Canadians.
Hopefully common sense will prevail with the NDP, otherwise our UI deficit will soar to new heights.


AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Madam Speaker, every day we hear members in this House complain about what the government is or is not doing.
Today I want to pass out a bouquet to my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, for the difficult decisions he has made in the last week. He deserves congratulations following two very important announcements that satisfied the long-standing concerns of many of my constituents.
The minister first announced a continental barley market which will open up significant opportunities for western barley growers. The minister also announced the establishment of a producer payment panel to oversee the shift of the Crow rate benefit from railways to producers.
Both of these changes will be beneficial to western farmers. I thank the minister for his attention to these important matters.


MINERS MEMORIAL DAY
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow, June 11, 1993, is miners memorial day in Cape Breton. This day holds a special place in the hearts of Cape Bretoners as it commemorates the work of our coal miners.
The life of a coal miner has changed through the years but the danger of working underground continues to be a haunting element of that industry.
Tomorrow is a day when we recognize the hard work of our miners and remember those who have sacrificed their lives for that industry. It is an emotional day for many. For some it brings back a sense of pride. For others it brings back a sense of fear and sadness.
We will also remember the families of our coal miners, the wives, mothers and children who waited on the surface only to have their worst fears come true.
On behalf of my constituents in Cape Breton-East Richmond I salute our Cape Breton coal miners for their contribution not only to our local economy but also to our culture, our history and our sense of pride on the island.
June 10, 1993


THE LATE MARIE LANDRY-VIGNEAULT
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, today the people of Natashquan, on the North Shore, mourn the loss of a pioneer whose dedication and zeal were an inspiration to those around her. Marie Landry-Vigneault, mother of Gilles Vigneault, the famous North Shore poet, died yesterday in Natashquan. She was 101 years old.
She will be remembered as a woman of exceptional talents. A mother of eight children, a teacher and also an occasional author under the pseudonym "La Ma-rieouche", she was widely known and respected by all.
In my capacity as member of Parliament for Manicouagan in the House of Commons, it is a privilege to pay tribute to this remarkable woman whose wisdom and experience are now part of the annals of the North Shore. Today, Quebecers join her son Gilles and her daughter Bernadette in singing that famous song: "Dame Marie, c'est a votre tour, de vous laisser parler d'amour".


FOREIGN AID
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, Canada and other developed countries use aid to subsidize domestic industry and promote foreign policy aims, according to a report entitled The Reality of Aid by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation and other non-governmental agencies around the world.
The report particularly criticizes tied aid, which is when donor countries give aid on the condition that it be used to buy goods and services from the donor country.
Canada spends 65 cents of every official development aid dollar in Canada. Tied aid increases costs by limiting competition, stifles the development of indigenous industries and skills and locks the recipient country into dependence upon parts and maintenance that may be expensive and inappropriate.
I call on Canada's government to abolish this kind of phoney aid and instead establish fair and equal trading relations with the countries of the south.


CREDIT CARDS
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Madam Speaker, this week the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs published its latest quarterly report, this time about credit card costs. In the report, consumers are informed about costs connected with the use of credit cards, to help them choose and use credit cards wisely.
Furthermore, as the summer holiday season approaches, consumers should remember to take additional precautions when using their credit cards. They should always keep them in a safe place. A person's vacation can be ruined if his or her credit cards are stolen. And besides, credit card thefts increase costs for all consumers.
I therefore urge all Canadian consumers to get a copy of this publication from their nearest Consumer and Corporate Affairs office. Don't leave home without it.


YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, the YWCA was founded in 1855 in England to assist independent young women in fully developing their intellectual, physical and spiritual strength.
Today the organization is an international movement. The first Canadian branch was opened in an Atlantic Canadian city, Saint John, New Brunswick in 1870, and then in Halifax in 1875.
Just last week at its annual meeting the YWCA elected as its national president, Dale Godsoe, a Haligonian and an outstanding volunteer and community activist in both social and political spheres.
The YWCA was founded on the qualities of strength, usefulness and responsibility, and those values still hold true today. The organization is a valuable place for women of all walks of life to gain leadership skills and life management training to help them meet the needs of an evolving community and society. The YWCA is an excellent advocate for women in this country and around the world.

June 10,1993
I want to send my congratulations to the new president and the YWCA board and ask them to continue their fight for the women of Canada.


INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, provincial trade ministers met in Vancouver this week to discuss the elimination of trade barriers between the provinces.
It appears that a process has been negotiated which will lead to a dismantling of barriers. This agreement, scheduled to take effect by July 1994, is most welcome and long overdue. Provinces should be commended for recognizing that it is time to tear down the obstacles that hinder growth within the Canadian economy.
According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 95 per cent of its member companies said they received no benefit from internal trade barriers. The elimination of these barriers will go a long way toward strengthening the economies of our provinces and will benefit all Canadians.


UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA HEART INSTITUTE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, I recently had the great privilege of returning to the House of Commons after demolishing my car in a serious car accident, followed by urgent preventative open heart surgery. The potential heart problem was discovered by Dr. Leach and his wonderful cardiology personnel at the National Defence Medical Centre.
The operation was performed by Dr. Wilbert Keon and his staff at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute at the Ottawa Civic Hospital before a major problem could occur.
When I returned to this House I was taken by storm when all members on both sides of this Chamber rose to give me a very warm welcome back. I extend my very sincere thanks to all members for that excellent dose of
mental therapy. In spite of what many may think this place has its moments of decency, kindness and understanding, and I thank everyone for it.
I pay tribute to Dr. Wilbert Keon to whom many of us owe our lives. This man could have gone off to California, Texas or Boston and written his own financial contract. He chose to stay home and to build a first class heart institute in the nation's capital and at the same time to train other medical personnel. We thousands who owe our lives to him and his colleagues salute him as a great and dedicated Canadian.
At the same time our best from all members of the House goes out to Mr. Speaker, his wife, Kate, and family as he recuperates in Vancouver. We wish him well.


TONY AWARDS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased to make this statement seeing that you, a former actress, are in the chair. I want to extend the congratulations of the House to my old friend, Brent Carver, who this week received a Tony Award for his role in the Broadway musical Kiss of a Spider Woman.
Brent is from Cranbrook, British Columbia. I first met him in the Arts Club of Vancouver. I want to congratulate also Garth Drabinsky, Live Entertainment of Canada Inc., Des McAnuff on his director's award and Adrea Martin on her best feature actress award.
These people were probably bom talented, but I would remind the House that Brent and the others have been beneficiaries of Canadian government public investment in the arts, in theatre and in films.
In accepting her award Adrea Martin thanked her family, and I quote, "for giving me my roots and my hairdresser, Gary, for restoring them to their natural colour".
We thank them all for their Canadian roots. It was a great week for Canadian talent in New York.
June 10, 1993



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday President Clinton said that NAFTA was in trouble in Congress and that the talks on side deals were at a complete impasse.
When the government forced the vote in the House of Commons last month telling us there was no problem with the deal, was it because the Conservative government was incompetent to forecast what was happening or was it because the Conservative government was trying to mislead Canadian people?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International IVade):: Madam Speaker, I guess we are going to have the same sort of twisting of things by members opposite, but let me make it quite clear that what we have legislated is simply to prepare ourselves for a NAFTA by the implementing legislation that results in changes to 23 different statutes if the other countries do the same.
If the other countries do not implement their NAFTA legislation then the terms of the legislation says that the legislation we passed in the House the other day will not go into force. We are simply preparing for the agreement when it comes and we are confident it will come in spite of the comments of my friend opposite. We want to put our business people in a position where they can plan to take advantage of the opportunities that are there and ensure they will be there.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, that is really funny. The minister has good intentions; he would like businessmen to be able to plan in Canada. But yesterday again, the U.S. government came up with a third proposal, this time on import surges. The U.S. government is proposing a third subject for a parallel accord.
Why does the Canadian government not want to do as the Americans now, namely move the issue forward and hold discussions immediately to get a clear definition of
Oral Questions
subsidy and of dumping, so that businessmen can plan and not be caught in the situation which the steel industry finds itself in now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I do not know where my friend has been. There is nothing new about the proposal on import surges. That was signalled by the U.S. president when he was running for president back in October 1992. There is nothing new in this.
My hon. says: "Let us clarify matters with relation to subsidies". That is precisely what we are doing during the Uruguay round negotiations. I am sure he would be very pleased to see that those negotiations have progressed significantly with the meeting I chaired in Toronto about a month ago and then the subsequent meeting in Paris last week that I attended with my counterparts in other countries. We will be continuing this process later this month in Tokyo.
We will be able to get a very solid response to the concerns he has expressed about subsidies which we share. We have agreed with the United States that we would pursue this through the Uruguay round.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, if they are concerned about subsidies and dumping why have they not taken the initiative to have the definition incorporated into the NAFTA? Why wait for the other proposition that might never come to fruition?
Yesterday I met with the steel industry. It is very competitive but it had the surprise of its life. The Canadian board under the authority of this government is permitting producers of steel from abroad to dump it in the Canadian economy. The board says that there is no injury, but it does not take a genius to understand that if we let people dump in our market eventually the dumping price will reduce the price producers are receiving in Canada. When will this government do something about it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend asked two questions. The answer to the first question on why we are using the GATT negotiations to resolve the questions on subsidies

June 10, 1993
Oral Questions
is that we have seen we can get a greater response from the Americans in the broader context of the Uruguay round than we can in the discussions and negotiations on the FTA.
That is why we are focusing our attention there. If my hon. friend reads the proposals in the Dunkel paper on the Uruguay round negotiations, the GATT negotiations, he will see they are very positive as far as Canada is concerned.
My hon. friend raises a question about the steel industry. The Deputy Prime Minister and I met with steel industry representatives last night. We have agreed on some matters which will be discussed with their representatives. Indeed the representatives of the industry met with officials earlier today to address the problems they have, problems and concerns that we share. We believe we can address this matter much better in a co-operative way as we have agreed last night.


STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the same minister. The minister is aware through his meeting yesterday with the Canadian steel industry that the industry is hurting and that it does not have access to the American market.
What immediate action is the minister prepared to take to put Canadian steel workers back to work and to make sure our Canadian steel industry continues to be viable?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, again my hon. friend is demonstrating ignorance of the issues.
My hon. friend is saying that Canadian companies do not have access to the market. What he ignores when he says that is the level of exports, the market share Canadian companies have in the U.S. market, has gone from about 3.25 per cent recently to the 4 per cent to 5 per cent range. There is access. He cannot blame the problems of the steel industry on lack of access.
If he wants to address what the problems of the steel industry are there is a range of issues he can address, many of which are in the hands of the steel industry and the steel unions themselves and not matters that are the responsibility of governments.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, our steel industry is as competitive as any in the world as long as the minister stands up for it.
The minister should be aware that the recent ruling against the Canadian steel interests by his Tory appointed trade tribunal has hurt the Canadian industry. Canada has been known as the dumping ground for steel from all around the world.
Will the minister send a strong message to the international community and to his trade tribunal that Canada will not be a dumping ground for steel from all around the world?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, let me make a point about what my hon. friend has just said.
We have been taking as strong a position as we possibly can in representing the steel industry in discussions it has had with the United States and in objectives it has in dealing with the United States market.
The issue my hon. friend has raised relates to a decision by a quasi-judicial board.


Mr. Marchi:: Nonsense.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend says: "Nonsense". There again is a demonstration of the ignorance of the people on the other side of the House when they ask these questions.
The point is that the decision was taken by an independent quasi-judicial board. My hon. friend may have disagreements with that. The industry may have disagreements with that. The industry can appeal. It is not the position, the role or the possibility for governments to direct that quasi-judicial board on what might or might not be the results of its decisions.
June 10, 1993


HEALTH CARE
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Canadian Hospital Association today released a report on health care reform entitled An Open Future, A Shared Vision which clearly states that after eight years of Tory rule the state of Canada's economy is a threat to our health care system and a threat to the health of Canadians. It recognizes the link between unemployment, poverty and poor health.
Both leading contenders for the Tory leadership have supported the government's economic policy and have promised to stay the course.
In view of the report by the Canadian Hospital Association, will the government now change its economic policy and implement a full employment policy as called for by the Leader of the New Democratic Party?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons the leadership candidates are wisely taking the position they are going to stay the course in terms of the government's economic policy is the fact that again today we see the Statistics Canada composite leading indicator rising by .8 per cent. That is the largest increase in two years. That is further testimony to the fact that in the fourth quarter of 1992 we had a gross domestic product growth in real terms of 3.5 per cent and almost 4 per cent in the first quarter of 1993.
What is most encouraging and most important is that this growth is occurring in the goods producing sector, that sector that will generate jobs today and in the future.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The report by the Canadian Hospital Association states that in order to prevent the Balkanization of our health care system there must be stable federal government funding of health care at a level that will allow the federal government to enforce national standards.
In view of this statement will the government now commit that it will restore the established programs funding for health care?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated in the House many times between the period 1984-85 to 1992-93 transfers to the provinces have grown at a rate of 5.2 per cent per year. That has caused almost a doubling in the amount of transfers made by the federal government to the provinces.
Something in the order of $40.5 billion in cash and tax point transfers will be made to the provinces this year. Even though our program expenditures will grow in real terms at zero or 1.5 per cent nominal, the growth in transfers to the provinces over the next five-year period will be just under 4 per cent. That is clear indication based on past statistics and future projections that the funding will be provided in an orderly and acceptable fashion.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, because of the cutbacks in federal transfer payments by the government the report outlines a number of alternatives for financing of health care which include direct user charges or, as we would call them, user fees. New Democrats of course will oppose such altering of funding.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister again confirm that in spite of the waffling from the Tory leadership candidates that his government will not allow the provinces to introduce user fees?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, to reiterate the point that I made earlier, the growth in federal transfers to the provinces has risen from $25.6 billion in 1984-85 to $40.5 billion in 1993-94. It continues to grow at a rate of something just under 4 per cent.
What has to be said here is that most of the stakeholders in the health care sector are suggesting that it is not necessarily a matter of more money, it is a matter of spending the money more effectively and using the resources more effectively and efficiently. That is precisely what the HEAL organization is all about and I suspect is what is really underlying some of the recommendations that are enshrined in this report.

June 10,1993
Oral Questions


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Madam Speaker, the government has repeatedly justified pushing NAFTA through Parliament before the negotiation of the side accords on the ground that the agreement would not be altered by the two side accords.
Now the United States has said NAFTA will be "modified" and "interpreted" by the side accords.
Does the minister not agree that this confirms what the Official Opposition has been saying all along, that the United States fully intends to alter NAFTA through the negotiation of the side accords?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure to what my hon. friend is referring.
But I can say that time and time again the President of the United States, the President of Mexico, the Prime Minister of Canada, ministers responsible, have all said and agreed on many occasions that there will be no reopening of the NAFTA by any agreement among the three countries. What we signed on December 17 last year is what is being legislated.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, I do not know then what the United States means by the words "modified and interpreted".
Let me ask the minister this. Despite the fact that the negotiation of the two side accords on the environment and labour standards has already reached an impasse, the United States now says it will soon unveil its proposal for a third side accord on import surges, to which the Leader of the Opposition referred just a moment ago.
There is also growing pressure in some areas of Congress for a fourth side agreement on monetary policy co-ordination, whatever that may mean.
Were such issues discussed? Were import surges discussed at the recent Washington meetings? If so, what is the Canadian government's position? Do we oppose the idea of further side agreements on import surges and possibly monetary co-ordination or do we not?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, let me quote something from Reuters. "If you were to ask me if we've reached an impasse I would say no", said chief U.S. negotiator Rufus Yerxa.
On the question of monetary policy co-ordination, I have never heard of that. That may be something that someone in Congress has floated in the course of some comments on the NAFTA. It has never been a point of discussion and certainly would be a non-starter as far this government is concerned.
On the question of import surges I commented in relation to a question that his leader has put to me. The question of import surges was raised last October. The Americans have some views on it but we agreed that there would be no basis for discussing anything on import surges if it resulted in a reopening of the agreement. Ambassador Kantor has said on a number of occasions he agrees that the matter of import surges is well covered in the NAFTA agreement itself.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Madam Speaker, the recent finance minister's meeting resulted in the recognition that the debt and deficit situation in Canada is certainly a major crisis. Obviously the continuing shell game of offloading the tax burden from one level of government to another is not satisfactory.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance why his government has not considered convening a tri-level conference on debt and deficit management involving the provinces but also involving representatives of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities so that we can arrive at a consensus on how to resolve this serious problem.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. We have been attempting to put in place some process where we can achieve greater co-ordination and co-operation at the federal and the provincial levels.
June 10, 1993

We have gone some distance particularly as a result of the meeting of finance ministers held in December and again the two-day meeting we had just a week or so ago.
I do not think there is any question in anyone's mind that deficit and debt are clearly the major challenges we face as a government. I do not think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that we have to deal with this issue in a co-operative fashion.
In regard to that, we have agreed on a work plan over the summer to carry out a number of initiatives which will look at the whole cost of government, how we might reduce duplication and overlap, how we might streamline and increase the efficiency of government both at the federal and provincial levels. Of course the municipal level would also be taken into consideration. There may be some scope for the hon. member's suggestion.


M. Douglas Young: Madam Speaker, the taxpayer who gets the bill in the mail does not really care what level of government it comes from.
There may be significant changes in the status of a number of people on the other side after the weekend. Does the Minister of Finance agree there has to be a consensus on how we resolve this matter? Should the Government of Canada not show some leadership in getting the municipalities and the provinces on line in managing both the deficit and the debt?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member there is only one taxpayer.
That is something we identified quite some time ago and is why it is important for all levels of government to face the challenge squarely of dealing with the deficit and the debt.
I submit to the hon. member that we are showing leadership. We convened the meeting. We are showing initiative. We took some steps in the constitutional debate to put in place a process in which we could have better co-ordination of our budgetary process while working more closely with the provinces.
That process is under way. The work plan has been established and there is agreement between the two levels of government to work toward achieving that goal. I think the results of the reduction in the deficit from 8.8 per cent of GDP in 1992-1993 to 7.2 per cent in
Oral Questions
1993-1994 is a pretty clear indication of the results of that effort.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, speaking of the debt issue, the Minister of Finance must have been quite surprised this morning to read from the Moody's Investor Services that the Canadian government seems to have dramatically over-estimated and in some cases perhaps even deliberately heightened the fear of a possible debt crisis in this country.
It would appear that the Government of Canada is using the threat of financial chaos to win support for some ideological vision of the country which encourages them to remove and reduce support for social programs.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Considering that late yesterday the Minister of the Environment, one of the leadership candidates, indicated that he would cut $8 billion in the transfers of the provinces and in light of the news today from Moody's Investor Services, is it not time for this government to stop offloading on to provincial jurisdictions?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, it is rather incredible how the New Democratic Party can twist and turn and mislead with something that is pretty clearly stated in a statement issued by Moody's. It said "several recently published reports have grossly exaggerated Canada's fiscal debt position. Some of them have double-counted numbers while others have made inappropriate international comparisons, comparing Canadian gross debt to other countries' net debt. These inaccurate measurements may have played a role in exaggerating evaluations".
It did not mention that the Government of Canada was deliberately misleading or overstating the debt.
It goes on to say the issue of the deficit and the debt is a great concern, acknowledging that the federal government has a plan to reduce the deficit, has acknowledged as well that the provinces have brought in very tough budgets to deal with the deficits. One of the representatives of Moody's went on to say: "Investors will lose confidence in Canadian bonds if governments do not begin to reduce both the federal and provincial deficit". It clearly outlines the importance of dealing with the

June 10,1993
Oral Questions
deficit issue but the encouraging news is that it has given Canada a low risk rating which obviously I welcome.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, as Mr. Francis has indicated, it gives Canada a low risk rating. What it suggests to him is that Moody's puts the debt burden in Canada at 50 per cent of GDP and the United States debt burden at 48 per cent of GDP. We recognize that the Clinton administration has taken a number of proactive steps to try to generate life back into their economy and this government is doing nothing.
The Minister of Finance is aware of the Auditor General's report that says that two of the major reasons we have a deficit crisis is because of the government's monetary policy of high interest rates and the myriad of tax loopholes that continue to exist in our tax system, including the family trust that was just recently introduced by this government once again.
If the Minister of Finance is serious about this debt issue, will he do the right and proper thing and start closing off in some serious way these massive tax loopholes that continue to exist, like the family trust.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party would like to see the capital gains exemption and exemptions to small business removed because they consider them to be tax loopholes.
The hon. members talks of Canada having excessively high interest rates. Let us look at the facts. He is criticizing Canada's monetary policy.


An hon. member:: It spreads.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It spreads. Let us deal with the prime interest rate. On May 25 Canada's prime rate was at 6 per cent, the United States prime rate 6 per cent, France's prime rate 8.8 per cent, Germany's prime rate is 10 per cent, the United Kingdom is 7 per cent and Italy is 12.25 per cent. I ask you, Madam Speaker, are Canada's interest rates high or low? They are the lowest in the pack.


CANADA POST
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, all the members of Parliament recently received this very attractive Canada Post annual report. It has terms like "on code, track and trace, enhanced targetry" and so on.
My question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post. Why does the government not tell us in the report how many rural post offices were closed in 1992-93? In other words, at what price to rural Canada was this so-called successful year realized?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I certainly want to offer the hon. member a briefing on all those difficult technical terms so he will be able to understand the report.
The hon. member may also be interested, if he is fair-minded, in the number of new postal outlets opened in rural Canada. It has been a ratio of 2:1; two openings for one closing. In fact, the total number is increasing.
He will also be interested to know that in post change surveys of the customers affected, the approval rating has been over 80 per cent. Every time you get an 80 per cent approval rating you know you are doing the right thing.


Jim Jordan: Madam Speaker, if the minister would come clean on this I would try and understand. If he would tell me how many rural post offices closed I will work real hard on understanding.
Perhaps the minister should start to appreciate that not all Canadians live in Calgary, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. I know some who live in Westport, Marl-bank, Seeleys Bay, Spencerville and Lombardy.
Constituents write and tell me it takes a general delivery letter four days to go 32 miles and three days for a letter to go 13 miles.
On behalf of all the people who live in rural and small town Canada, I want to ask the minister this: When is Canada Post going to start delivering the mail again in rural Canada?
June 10, 1993


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I have to admit that he did ask a better question than some coming from his leader.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: Perhaps the hon. member missed the part in the annual report where it is mentioned that on a quarterly basis Ernst and Young, an independent auditor, audits the on-time delivery of Canada Post mail, including from small town to small town, and the on-time delivery is 98 per cent.
The hon. member is making the same mistake he has made in terms of rural post offices. I said 80 per cent of the people affected approved of it. He said that he does not care, that he was worried about the 20 per cent. He says that he does not care that 99 per cent of the mail arrives on time, he is worried about the 1 per cent. He can worry about that 1 per cent, we are concerned with the 99 per cent.


STUDENT AID
Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State.
Given that the public accounts committee, chaired by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier, has shown the inadequacy of the current Student Assistance Program, that the 3 per cent tax on student loans should be removed as promised by the government, that the cost of living criteria for student allocations have not been adjusted since 1984, that students will be applying for student aid in August under old rules and an inadequate program, why is the government not bringing forth legislation that will correct these problems in the student aid program?
Why is the government not doing what it has promised to do for years now?


Hon. Monique Landry (Secretary of State of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I think all members of this House will admit that over the years, the Canada Student Loans Program has done what it was supposed to do, which is to help an increasing number of students finish their education.
Oral Questions
In his budget last year, the Minister of Finance announced a complete restructuring of the program in order to focus on two objectives. These were to enhance and increase support for students and thus give them a wider range of opportunities, but always within our budgetary limits. In fact, we are now finalizing the plan. I have had some fairly extensive consultations recently, and I believe that we will soon be able to announce certain improvements.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. Why will the government not introduce this legislation? I do not understand. Is it afraid how the general public will react to the subsidies it will give the banks to manage the Student Loans Program or is the government afraid of the criteria for bank loans as they will be applied to students? Will it cancel the 3 per cent guarantee fee? Why will the government not act? There seems to be no good reason. This plan has been in the works for years.


Monique Landry: Madam Speaker, the bill is being prepared, the requisite approvals have been given, and our negotiations with the banking community concerned how we would share the risk involved in student loans. Negotiations are at an advanced stage, we are very confident they will soon be finalized. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate the additional flexibility in this program, which will help students plan their week-to-week expenses, and also help those students with special needs. The hon. member will get some very good news shortly.


CRIME PREVENTION
Louise Feltham: Madam Speaker, two months ago the Minister of Justice held a symposium on community safety and crime prevention. The participants at the symposium called for quick action by the federal government in many areas pertaining to community safety.
I would like to ask the minister what progress he has made in following up on the recommendations made at the symposium.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the gathering of close to 300 people in Toronto in March

June 10, 1993
Oral Questions
from police forces, provincial governments, and federal departments, plus interest groups of the Elizabeth Fry Society and Bay Street and so on was a great success.
I think this will interest the members on the other side. Twenty-five to 30 people from that group are now working on a national strategy on crime prevention. It is very good to get those people together to help us to define the parameters to improve and to spend in a better way the money we have on crime prevention.


EMPLOYMENT
Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I have here a copy of a confidential report produced in the winter of 1993 by the International Monetary Fund which I will be happy to table with the House.
This report was done in co-operation with the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Crow. The report cites a figure of 8.75 per cent as the natural rate of unemployment in this country. This is apparently a figure accepted by this government as a benchmark for Tory economic policy making.
My question is a very simple one for the minister. Can he explain to this House what exactly natural unemployment rate is?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I have not seen the document to which the hon. member is referring.
If she wants to send it over to me I will take a look at it and see in what context it is being used. If the hon. member is asking me about the unemployment situation I can tell her very clearly that the current level of unemployment is too high as far as I am concerned.
We are taking every reasonable step possible and available to ensure that that is turned around. It starts with low interest rates, low inflation, getting the fundamentals right and fiscal consolidation along with the kinds of adjustment programs necessary to facilitate the restructuring to ensure that we can continue to be competitive, productive and a major exporting nation.
That is exactly what is happening. That is why we are seeing growth in the goods producing sector and that is why we are going to see jobs and more jobs.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I find it fascinating that the Minister of Finance would suggest that he does not know that the current use of the term natural rate of unemployment is that the government is accepting the lowest level that can be expected in Canada.
At a recently held conference hosted by the institute for research on public policy attended by senior government representatives and academics it became clear that the government is comfortable with a natural rate of unemployment in the range of 7 per cent to 8 per cent. The entrenchment of a high rate of unemployment is seen by this government as a good thing to establish its policies and to keep inflation down.
My question is this. How can this government willingly embrace and promote the misery of almost a million unemployed Canadians by establishing a policy that has an 8 per cent unemployment rate being okay? Is it just going to wipe out the unemployment line like it did the poverty line?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is incorrect in her assumptions.
If she would look at page 40 of the budget that was tabled in April 1993 she would find that we are projecting an unemployment rate of 7.5 per cent average in the period 1995-98.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries.
It is now three weeks since the minister of fisheries announced details of his so-called adjustment measures for Atlantic fishermen and plant workers. These same fishermen and plant workers are still being forced to endure endless and arbitrary delays by this minister and his department in implementing what is already a meagre aid package.
June 10, 1993
[Stage Direction]
Fishermen cannot fish. Quotas have been cut by 70 per cent. In the month of May no less than three 10-day closures were imposed in the gulf because of small fish. Many fishermen are in their fourth week without any income.
Will the minister finally admit that this situation is a de facto moratorium and come forward now with an appropriate and more substantial aid package?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Madam Speaker, there is no moratorium of course on the fishery in the area that the hon. gentleman mentions. There was an-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: What about a de facto?


Mr. Peterson:: Kim doesn't agree with you.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman opposite is not from a fishing area and he does not know what he is talking about.


Mr. MacKay:: But he flounders around a lot. Knock him off his perch, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is a bit of a flounderer, my deskmate says.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Give him a fair herring, John.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I know that quite a few other members want to ask questions. I think we may gain a lot by having questions shorter and the answer shorter.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is not for the fisheries minister, the fourth we have seen in the last nine years of this government, but to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister.
Like so many other fields of activity in which it has been engaged, this dying government is leaving the Atlantic fishery in a shambles. As he prepares to leave office, along with the Prime Minister, will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to this House how he intends to justify this monumental failure by his government to manage one of Canada's most vital industries?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportu-
Oral Questions
nities Agency): Madam Speaker, we certainly realize that this is partisan rhetoric because in the long history of Canada there has never been a period of 18 months where a government committed $1.2 billion to meet a situation in the fishery not caused by the government but caused primarily by environmental conditions that have affected fish stocks; $1.2 billion, including $191 million in the Atlantic adjustment program that the hon. member opposite is scoffing at now. In the long history of Canada it is the greatest amount of assistance to fishermen ever.


CANADA-NOVA SCOTIA AGRICULTURE AGREEMENT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries but it is not on fish. It is in respect to his position in terms of ACOA. Could he please seriously bring us up to date on the status of the Canada-Nova Scotia food agricultural agreement in which so many projects are on hold until we sort out a few problems?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I am glad on this occasion to answer a question from a former leadership candidate in our party as a former leadership candidate myself and I believe we are both supporting the same candidate at this particular convention.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, with reference to the agricultural matters that the hon. gentleman refers to, and he is often of course standing in agricultural matter himself, we are hoping to straighten out the matter of a renewal of an agricultural agreement with Nova Scotia in the next several weeks. There have to be some adjustments as a result of the budget. All members of the House are against the deficit, including the Leader of the Opposition. We are against the deficit. I had to deal with that situation because I am against the deficit and when it is all over we will know who is for the deficit and who is against the deficit and whether or not we can enter into such an agreement.

June 10, 1993
Business of the House
AGRICULTURE	does the Minister of Finance want to get up in the House
and repudiate the Minister of the Environment, stand by Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex): Madam his budget and not-
Speaker, this week the Government of France made
some concessions relating to the oilseeds production that Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. member who is an have been regarded as a major breakthrough in GATT experienced member knows that this is not a receivable negotiations.	question.
Recently a very well informed appointed member of the other place stated that a GATT agreement would be forthcoming from the G-7 summit meeting in Tokyo in July. This same Tory senator stated that we will see the demise of marketing boards in Canada and that they will be replaced by tariffication.
Will the government tell us when it changed its position? Why is it changing its position? Why is it giving up on article ll(2)(c) when the United States is moving toward a system of planned production in its dairy industry?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, we have not changed the position. The position remains the same as it has always been, the unified position on Canadian agriculture that has been supported by all sides of the agriculture sector. That is to protect the marketing boards system and to seek a strengthening clarification of article ll(2)(c).
My hon. friend is quite aware of that position and I know that he supports it as well.


TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
Yesterday the Minister of the Environment in his capacity as a leadership candidate said that he would like to cut some $8 billion from transfer payments to the provinces which is contrary to what the Minister of Finance has said from time to time.
I know that the Minister of National Defence has said that the Minister of the Environment has never had a substantive portfolio in this government. In spite of that,


GUN CONTROL
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In Nova Scotia, the Liberal government wants to exempt gun clubs in the province from Bill C-17 by allowing target practice with para-military and semi-automatic firearms with large-capacity cartridge magazines. These are dangerous weapons, however.
My question is this: could the minister explain why the Liberal government of Nova Scotia issues exemptions in violation of the Criminal Code?


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, the hon. member may recall that last year, Parliament delegated authority for designating and identifying shooting competitions to the attorneys general of the provinces. It is therefore up to the provinces to make such identification.
I hope there will be some form of standardization in the way this is done. I know that Nova Scotia's decision has been criticized. I will monitor this very closely with my officials. I am waiting to see how the other provinces will react as well, but I am monitoring the situation.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the government House leader to confirm the business for the remaining part of today, which I understand will be on Bill C-126, and whether or not we will be proceeding to Bill C-103 and thereafter Bill C-106. Can he confirm that.
June 10, 1993

Would he also confirm for members of the House as to what the business will be next week. As I understand it, he intends to proceed with the report stage and third reading on Monday and Tuesday of Bill C-110, namely the fixed link. It is my understanding that on Wednesday he will proceed with an adjournment motion at 3 p.m. Can he confirm that for members of the House?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the House leader of the Liberal Party has it all right except the precise time of the adjournment motion next Wednesday.
I would like to discuss with House leaders opposite in terms of what business might be conducted on Wednesday. It would be our hope to move the adjournment debate that day.


NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT CROSSING ACT
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or (2) with respect to report stage and third reading of Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing, and under the provisions of Standing Order (78(3), I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, the government House leader indicated that it will be his intention some time on Wednesday to proceed with an adjournment motion. Perhaps that will have to be done on Thursday or Friday. I did not hear specifically. Maybe he wants to negotiate this further.
With regard to Bill C-128, the pornography bill, which as you know our critic in the Liberal Party is supporting,
Privilege
we were wondering whether or not the government can give any indication as to the time frame in which it wishes to bring this bill forward so that we can proceed on this expeditiously.


Harvie Andre: That is certainly one of the bills on which it is my understanding the work of the committee is going on successfully. There is a fair degree of unanimity. It would certainly be my intention that once committee work is completed on that to talk to colleagues opposite to see whether in fact it is desirable to proceed with completion of that bill before the summer adjournment.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am now ready to rule on the matter raised by the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte on Friday, June 4, 1993.1 was hoping the hon. member would be in the House. He was told but unfortunately he was not here yesterday and he is not here today.
In his submission, the hon. member stated that in one of the lobbies just before Question Period he received a letter from the solicitors of Mr. Tim Ralfe giving notice of their intention to reserve the right to bring action for libel against the hon. member. The letter, which I have examined, demands that a full and unconditional apology and retraction be delivered by the hon. member for a verbal and written statement about Mr. Ralfe which the letter claims was made by the hon. member outside the precinct of Parliament on June 3, 1993. It is the contention of the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte that the receipt of this letter in the precincts of the House constitutes a question of privilege. He has argued that the action of Mr. Ralfe and his solicitors and the apparent familiarity of the government House leader with the letter constitutes an attempt to intimidate him and prevent him from performing his duties.
I have reviewed the situation re-examining what was said during Question Period and during the discussion of this matter. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those hon. members who made interventions.

June 10,1993
Routine Proceedings

As the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell pointed out, there are two questions to be answered to determine if this should be considered a prima facie question of privilege. Has there been an attempt to intimidate a member in the exercise of his duties? Were legal documents served or delivered in the precincts of Parliament, in particular one of the lobbies, without the Speaker's express permission?

Joseph Maingot in Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 96, states:
While it is clear that the member is afforded absolute privilege in law for acts done and words said during a parliamentary proceeding, he speaks outside the House at his peril without the protection of parliamentary privilege. In these same circumstances, however, he is afforded the protection of the common law like anyone else to the extent that it would apply.
While it is the Speaker's duty to maintain decorum in the House, the Speaker, as servant of the House, does not have the power to instigate disciplinary action against a member for actions taken or words spoken outside the Chamber of the House. What a member says outside the House about anyone is subject to the laws of the land relating to libel or slander as it would be for any other Canadian-if indeed the comments are actionable. What members say in the Chamber, however, is protected by privilege. Thus if the situation is as described in the letter to the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe- Baie Verte, then this cannot be considered a question of privilege and it is therefore not up to the Speaker to intervene.

There is a long-standing tradition that process cannot be served in the precincts of the House of Commons. The Chair has always maintained that such service of process would be improper without the permission of the Speaker. As regards civil matters, this was forcefully reiterated in a Speaker's ruling of May 19, 1989.
Having carefully examined the letter received by the hon. member from the solicitors of Mr. Ralfe, the Chaumust conclude that it does not fall under the definition of process implicit in the notion of which is issuance from a court of law. It is clear from the text of the letter that no legal proceedings have been begun and delivery of the letter was not a service of process. The letter could just as well have been sent through the mails as delivered by hand. There was no requirement to inform the Speaker, nor are there any grounds for the Chair to intervene in this matter.
For these reasons this situation does not meet the criteria of a prima facie question of privilege. I thank the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find consent in the House for the following motion:
That the motion of May 26, 1993 authorizing the Subcommittee on Development and Human Rights of the Standing Committee of Eiriemal Affairs and International Trade to travel to Vienna be amended by changing the dates to read June 11 to June 26, 1993.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct. There have been some consultations among the different parties of the House and we wish to give our consent.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in light of fact we had already earlier approved this most important issue, we would like to update the visiting time and indicate our support.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
June 10, 1993


[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 third time and passed.
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I want to complete my remarks with some of the stories of women who have written to me on this issue. They capture the need for a strong and effective anti-stalking law.
One woman had been stalked for eight years and she said:
Being watched, followed, assaulted, vandalized, robbed, threatened with your life, harassed at school and at work is not romantic. It is a violation of one's rights and freedoms.
She also said:
All the orders in the world could not help, because the police were reluctant to arrest him, and when they did, the judges let him go with very mild sentences.
She had to leave home and go into hiding. She said she was forced to live the existence of a criminal on the run while the real criminal enjoyed freedom. She said:
A person has to be seriously hurt, maimed or killed before anything can be done to get the stalker off the streets-Laws have existed all along. They are not being used to their fullest degree-Even if the accused is a repeat offender, and there is a jail term, they only do half the time-When they do get out, they come out angry. Usually there is a plan for continued or more aggressive harassment.
With the bill before us the problem of lenient sentences remains. Repeat offenders and those who break court orders can still just get probation or one month in jail to be served on weekends.
Our courts do not take assault and sexual assault seriously. Why should they take this criminal harassment law seriously?
In another case a woman left her husband who physically, sexually and emotionally abused her. He threatened to kidnap her daughter. He had access to the daughter. Every time he came over he would threaten to beat up his ex-wife. He phoned her at all hours and said nothing or he threatened her. He told her he would get a gun and blow her head off. He had a court order not to
Government Orders
contact her. He phoned to threaten her and then he came over. She phoned the police but it took a further phone call and 45 minutes before they arrived. He was charged and found guilty but only given probation. She has since received three death threats in the mail. To this day even hearing the phone ring makes her feel ill.
The Manitoba government made representation before the committee studying the bill. In the five recent stalking cases that it outlined all the harassers broke restraining orders and there was no great penalty for them in doing so. Women have died because of a lack of protection, because of a lack of a strong law, because of an inconsistent enforcement of our current laws, and because of the attitudes in our society that produce these particular men who try to control women. Unfortunately the government has not accepted strong penalties for repeat offenders and those who break restraining orders.
The state of Virginia has a minimum six-year sentence for a third offence of stalking. What I proposed was a minimum six-month sentence for a second offence of stalking which is the same as a second offence penalty for drunk driving.
I am very pleased to support the child witness and anti-child abuse provisions of the bill. I also support a strong and effective anti-stalking bill. I am sorry this bill is not as strong or as clear as I had hoped it would be. We still support the bill. We think that this is one small step forward out of a series of steps that must be taken to eradicate violence against women.
I will conclude by congratulating the real heroes of the day: all those who work in shelters for battered women, who work with abused children, who work in community groups and women's groups to educate the public about these issues. They are the reason we are talking about this today. They deserve our deepest thanks and utmost respect.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to make a few comments on this piece of legislation and to get the reflections of my colleague from New Westminister-Burnaby on it.
A great deal of the impetus for the bill belongs to the hard work of the member for New Westminister-Burnaby. She initiated a private member's bill that was clear and succinct in setting out what was wanted by women across the country. I sent out some information to my riding in a letter outlining the purpose of the bill and

June 10,1993
Government Orders
asking people to indicate their support. Much to my surprise I received 2,500 letters supporting that private member's bill. That is much greater than any other type of mail-back I have received in my nearly five years in the House. I can understand why, as it is a problem women in particular have faced for years.
I have worked in family courts. I have worked in social services. I have known many women who have been criminally harassed and stalked. Within my extended family we have a young woman who was harassed, stalked or followed. She actually moved from one city to another and still was seriously assaulted because the stalker appeared to be immune.
I had the privilege of sitting in on the committee hearings for a couple of days. I heard women give evidence about their problems. Their lives were not only terrorized but were put in total disarray by somebody repeatedly phoning them. Even after changing their phone numbers it took only two days for the men to get the new phone numbers.
Men contacted their family physicians and actually got information. These men contacted their relatives and employers. Whenever the women went out of their houses to their places of employment the men were there. Clearly these men were interested in controlling the women. They put the women's lives in turmoil. They wanted to control and exercise power over them. It was not always that they exercised it in terms of threats. They often veiled their power by saying that they wanted to help them, that they wanted to be with them and that they loved them.
During committee consideration it became obvious there was a need for this type of legislation. The committee worked hard and made many improvements. There are some things I regret the committee refused to address.
I want to mention just one or two of them. One was that there should have been a minimum sentence for repeat offenders or people who continued to harass where there was a court order or a restraining order prohibiting them from doing so. To not have a minimum sentence makes it a mockery. Another area I would liked to have seen dealt with is the matter of education.
Does the member for New Westminster-Burnaby feel there will be another opportunity in the near future to bring back the legislation to deal with two major flaws? One is the minimum sentence and the other is the education of police, the judiciary and judges.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Surrey North for his support when I was drafting my private members' bill and his support for the legislation within my own caucus and outside in his community.
Without the understanding of both men and women as parliamentarians and both men and women in society about the real tragedy of this kind of harassment and terrorism, I do not think we can make the progress we need to make.
He talked about two provisions that I also feel very strongly about. The matter of education of the police officials, Crown prosecutors and the judges is something I and others have certainly been talking about in this place for close to the five years we have been here. We have been pushing for mandatory gender sensitivity education. Over and over again we see inappropriate, ill-informed and sexist comments from the top, from the judges, in terms of the reality of women's lives and experiences. I do not believe it will change until we make a concerted effort in that area.
In Australia it has been done. The former Minister of Justice who is now running to be leader of the Conservative Party has said in the House it is impossible to do so, that we have to respect the integrity of the judges. That is nonsense. It has been done in Australia. It can be done. It needs to be done.
On the issue of penalties within this bill I feel disappointed because in talking to people within the court system and women themselves, they have told me of cases over and over again where a man has been served with a restraining order and right there in the court room in front of the officials, the judges, the Crown prosecutors and the lawyers, he takes the restraining order and says: "This is not worth the paper it is printed on and I am going to get you". Unfortunately he is right. It is not worth the paper it is printed on under our current system. I wish we had minimum penalties in
June 10, 1993

this regard. I wish we had a more severe penalty for repeat offenders.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to speak at third reading of the bill. It is a very important bill, particularly for all women and children. Not only is it relating to stalking but it relates to a lot of the problems being experienced by children who are witnesses in court and who are subject to sexual offences. There is a good deal in the bill that has to be addressed. That is why my party and I feel it is important the bill be passed.
It is very unfortunate the process has been rushed. It would have been much better had the government allowed proper time for dialogue on this important question. It has not. I do not think it is a bad bill as a result. I want to say it is largely because of the work of the legislative committee that this is the case, particularly the work of the members from Halifax and Moncton who did a good deal work for our party on this bill and other members from other parties as well.
I want to say that in dealing with legislation it is important to have dialogue. There has been criticism of this legislation and I think it has been justified. There are a lot of national groups in Canada that have been working very hard on women's and children's issues. They were not consulted before this bill was formulated.
That is wrong. It is not a question of looking to determine what any particular group can add. People working in these circumstances and dealing with the problems we want to address in the legislation should be contacted.
The member for New Westminster-Burnaby mentioned the real heroes regarding this bill. We are talking about people who have worked on children's problems and violence against women. They have known about the phenomenon of stalking for years. They have watched thousands of women suffer through the terror of being stalked.
These front line workers are the real experts in this field. However their expertise was overlooked by the government in its rush to pass this piece of pre-election legislation.
This is unfortunate particularly when the Minister of Justice said in a letter to METRAC: "The government of
Government Orders
which I am a member believes in the value of consultations with stakeholders in an issue". That is directly contrary to the practice of the government.
On last year's bill dealing with the rape shield, Bill C-49, there was consultation. I think that as a result there was more of a consensus when the bill was introduced in the House.
I would hope that the government will consult in the future, which means all of three sitting days of the House in this Parliament. It might consult with only one or two people but it is a beginning. Unfortunately it will not have the chance to perfect it beyond that modest beginning. That is the way it is. If those members cannot learn in nine years the chances of them learning now or in the future seem rather remote.
This bill has been improved as a result of the legislative committee process. I want to talk about some of the amendments that have been put forward and passed. One is that there is no longer a need for prosecutors to prove that a pursuer had a specific intent to harass his victim.
The legislation now says that prosecutors need prove only that a stalker acts "knowing that another person is harassed". I think that is important. To emphasize it I want to use the words of one of the witnesses who gave very good testimony, Mr. Stewart Whitley, the assistant deputy attorney general for the province of Manitoba.
The words he used are very important. They set it out very well. He says: "From the legal framework point of view, it is our view that the bill need only prohibit the conduct that we are attempting to discourage. We are indifferent to the man's intent. If A throws a bottle at B and hits C, he is not relieved from criminal liability simply because he has been heard to say: 'I did not intend to harm that person'. The intent requisite for assault is sufficient to make out the crime of assault. Why is it not good enough for stalking?" That is very important. We have made a major improvement here and I want to congratulate the committee.
The test for reasonable fear has also been amended. Originally a person had to reasonably fear for her safety before a charge could be laid. The bill now refers to a reasonable fear for safety taking into account "all of the circumstances". That is a major improvement.

sensitize our police and our judiciary to the actual concern and immediacy of this stalking dilemma.
I think the police and the judiciary are well prepared for any kind of help and information we can give to them. I hope that courses and instruction will follow to the necessary degree. I hope that police academies, for instance, will deal with these very real concerns that women have in our society today.
Dr. Simms went on to testify: "Although women's organizations would welcome any measure that offers real protection to abused women no national women's group has identified an urgent need for this law. Why not? In part because we know how difficult it is to persuade police and prosecutors to enforce the law we do have. The problems go beyond the quality of our laws to attitudes in the criminal justice system and inadequate funding for protection".
We must listen to those comments. We must listen to the feeling by women's groups that the police, judiciary and criminal justice system do not fully appreciate the concerns women have.
We also must appreciate the fact that funding has to be present. In Quebec, and I mentioned this at second reading, women's shelters for abused women were advertised. They offered these services to these women. The response was so great that it overloaded the system and there were not the facilities to handle and take care of the women who needed the assistance and so they withdrew the commercials from the media. That is a sad commentary but the fact is that funding is a very important aspect.
I want to deal with another very important point that was made by Lee Lakeman of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. She said: "In the consultations the National Action Committee has been able to do with front line workers we find that the major problem facing women victims of repeated obsessive harassment is that neither the police nor the courts believe that the threats are serious. Often they do not believe that the threats have happened".
I think people will say: "That is not true. How can our courts and our police forces really believe this?" We have heard from two major national women's organiza-
Govemment Orders
tions in this country that that concern is very real. If that concern is put forward by both groups in almost the same language then I think it is important for the criminal justice system in this country to listen.
We have to listen to it and we have to make sure that we follow this up. We must not leave this whole question with the passage of this bill. We must proceed with the follow up. We must remove the terror from the women who are being stalked in this country and assaulted and in many cases killed by the stalkers. These are not people in most cases with whom they are unfamiliar. These are former husbands and boyfriends. The fact of the matter is that the law might have been there to a certain degree, but this bill makes it stronger.
We as members of Parliament have an obligation to see that this legislation is passed because it is a major step forward.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I am listening very carefully to all of the interventions about women being stalked and so on. It is abhorrent, but I have not heard anyone speaking about women being harassed with children or where the women and children are being harassed at the same time.
As a former principal of many schools this used to be a constant problem. The wife would run away with the children to another province to hide from her husband. I had a case where a woman ran away from Winnipeg to Toronto. The husband would find the children in the school yard and the children would be brought to the principal's office in terror.
Is the bill addressing the women who have this double problem? It is not only the women being stalked themselves but the children being stalked at the same time?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the bill does address this. The previous situation was that a woman who was in terror for her safety and perhaps even her life and who took her children with her when she fled the family home could be accused of having taken the children away and fleeing illegally and be subject to court action for taking the children away unlawfully.
The fact is that this bill recognizes that when a woman leaves in terror for her own safety, and in many cases it is the safety of her children, that she is not going to abandon her children. She is going to take her children with her. That is very important.

June 10,1993
Government Orders
I want to thank the member for Parkdale-High Park for bringing this point forward. It is a very important point. It does recognize the bond between the mother and the children and the fact that the children cannot be excluded from the agony of this situation.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills without amendment: Bill C-132, an act to establish a territory to be known as Nunavut and provide for its government and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof; Bill C-133, an act respecting an agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut settlement area and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada; and Bill C-134, an act for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1994.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Beverly McLachlin, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 10th day of June, 1993, at 3.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith LaRocque,
Secretary to the Governor General



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 third time and passed.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have just a follow up on the matter raised by the member for Parkdale-High Park.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys pointed out the new provisions which concerns usually a woman taking her children when she believes they face imminent harm. I should also point out that in the stalking section itself one of the ways that criminal harassment can take place is if the threatening conduct is not directed just at the individual in question but any other member of their family. That would bring the children within the scope of the bill. I just thought I would make that comment.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I may not take the 10 minutes because what I have to say is fairly simple.
First I want to commend members on all sides of this House who have done a very large amount of work on this bill. As has been agreed on all sides, it could be better but it is best for it to go through now and it can be improved in further years.
There is a great weight of evidence that has been brought forward in the committee and sampled in the House about the need for Bill C-126 to defend against stalking. I admit that I was surprised at first at the expressed need for this bill although it is clear enough even from the daily newspapers and from phone calls to my office that something like this is needed. I asked myself if this was a change or if this something that was not needed before. I would say that it is not entirely so.
In the past, domestic violence, as it was often classified, was very rarely a subject of a court action and very rarely punished. The attitude was that it would be handled within the family. Many women in the past
June 10, 1993

spent more time within what was called the home and if there was violence there the police and the courts rarely intervened. Also for obvious reasons, in the past, women may not have complained when they perhaps in hindsight had reason to complain. What has happened in part is that a situation has been brought to light and brought to Parliament and Parliament has begun to deal with it in this act.
There is a further reason why this law should be coming now rather than 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. There has been a change and it is the rising status of women in the Canadian economy, society and politics. This includes Parliament. There are more women now in the work force.
So they are out. They are in one sense more exposed or more vulnerable to such a thing as stalking. On the other hand, the stalking becomes more visible and more obvious and more capable of being dealt with than perhaps it was before.
More women are now able in one way or another to act without their husbands. For example, when my wife and I were married in Quebec in 1950 we were advised by a friendly lawyer to get a marriage contract.
Otherwise by the then Quebec laws my wife would be considered a minor even though she is the same age as I am. She would pass from the tutelage of her father to the tutelage of her husband. She would not be able to sign a cheque if somebody challenged the fact that it was the signature of a minor, let alone conduct business or own property.
Although we had no money I was persuaded to settle a vast amount of money and property on her so that if she ever had to act alone she would have a sound legal basis for doing it under the 1950 laws in Quebec. Of course those laws have been long since repealed. They have been replaced with much more modem laws.
That is part of the change in our society. I remember about 35 years ago when a work mate-a man working in the factory where I then worked-remarked that it was too bad that a woman can just walk out of the house and leave her husband and get a job. Clearly he felt that the old days were better when she was forced to stay home in order to eat because she could not get a job as there were
Government Orders
not that many jobs for women. In the then modem circumstances of the late 1950s there were so many jobs that a woman could just leave her husband and walk out. My friend thought that was really quite terrible. I think he has updated his ideas since then. He and his wife are both together but I do not think he would say now what he said then.
I have given some extreme examples. What has been happening is that men at the present time tend to resent the fact of women attaining equality before the law, in employment, in social status and in social positions. I do not say that they have attained complete equality-far from it-but they have been moving up. Some men find that very hard to take. I
I want to say that it is a good law because it reflects a change for the better in our society. I do not mean the stalking is better but it is the change that has brought the stalking either into the light or into greater prominence. The rise in the status of women is in itself a good change.
This law will enable that change to go further still. I congratulate those especially on the committee from all parties who have worked on this law. I look forward to it being very useful to the people in Trinity-Spadina and to those in the rest of Canada.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to stand in this House today to speak to Bill C-126, which is a bill that would make a criminal offence of harassment or stalking.
Although this bill is flawed it has my support. The proposed provisions of this bill prohibit anyone from repeatedly communicating with or following another person, any member of their family and anyone known to that person.
Such stalking would include persistently following someone, spending extended periods of time watching someone's home or place of work, making harassing telephone calls and making contact with one's neighbours or friends.
Section 423 prohibits intimidation which is generally defined as using violence or threats of violence against someone or their spouse or children, following or watching someone for the purpose of compelling them not to do something they have a lawful right to do or compelling them to do something they have a lawful right not to do.

June 10, 1993
Government Orders
This section is generally recognized as being inadequate because offences are hard to prove.
I was pleased to see that clause 2, section 264.1 was changed. Intent to harass was removed because intention is much harder to prove. It was replaced with "knowingly or recklessly" which is a lower standard of proof. This should make it easier to secure a conviction with a lower standard of proof.
Section 264.2 was amended to add all the circumstances. The reason for this is that it takes into account the circumstances of the woman. It provides context. The standard becomes more subjective as opposed to the objective that causes another person-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I think we have a message from the Senate.



ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: 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 C-92, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Income Thx Conventions Interpretation Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and certain related acts-Chapter No. 24;
Bill C-102, an act to amend the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Customs Act, the Criminal Code and a related act -Chapter No. 25;
Bill C-118, an act to amend the Export Development Act-Chapter No. 26;
Bill C-112, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Access to Information Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Federal Court Act, the Income Thx Act, the Thx Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and a related act -Chapter No. 27;
Bill C-132, an act to establish a territoiy to be known as Nunavut and provide for its government and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 28;
Bill C-133, an act respecting an agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada-Chapter No. 29; and
Bill C-134, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending 31st March, 1994-Chapter No. 30.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-The Economy; the hon. member for Don Valley East-Air India; the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception-Armed Forces; the hon. member for Halifax-National Defence, and the hon. member for St. Boniface-Employment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[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 third time and passed.
Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, section 264(2) was amended to add all the circumstances. The reason for doing this is that it takes into account the circumstances of the woman. It provides context. The standard becomes more subjective as opposed to objective:
that causes that other person reasonably to fear
By recognizing that women's experience and perceptions are different than those of men, this amendment would be used to substantiate the reasonableness of the victim's fear.
June 10, 1993

I am pleased that Bill C-126 proposes harsher penalties for this type of offence. Increasing the possible penalty for this offence to a maximum of five years in prison sends a strong message that stalking will no longer be tolerated. In fact zero tolerance of harassment must be our common goal and action.
Clause 7, section 465 was amended to add a section on husband-wife conspiracy with regard to the abduction of a child. This amendment was voted down in committee because it would not take into account the situation, financial dependence, fear of assault, battered wife syndrome, et cetera of women who are often forced into such acts. There is often a power imbalance between partners that must be acknowledged by law. Such an amendment would not have recognized that in many relationships women have neither control nor power.
I was pleased with the parental child abduction provisions. At present children are not protected from abduction where there is a valid custody order but the abducting parent believes it to be invalid. This bill redresses this situation and closes this gap by stating that:
A person is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence
punishable on summary conviction if this parent abducts a child
whether or not there is a custody order with relation to that person.
This is a long overdue measure.
Clause 9 of the bill was amended to prohibit accused persons from possessing firearms, ammunition and explosive substances. The accused must also surrender firearms acquisition certificates. This refers to clause 8, subsection 515 (4.1) and is designed to give added protection to the victims. In other words, in addition to not being able to communicate with the victims and frequent certain places, the accused will no longer be allowed to possess firearms.
I also support the amendment proposed by my colleague from Moncton that the House undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions of this act. This is imperative to ensure that the act, if and when implemented, is meeting the needs of Canadian society.
I am concerned by the provisions with respect to convicted sex offenders and their access to children. The new provision that would provide for up to a lifetime ban on convicted sex offenders from frequenting day care centres, school grounds, play grounds or community centres, public parks, bathing areas and so on is problem-
Government Orders
atic. Although it allows the court the discretion to tailor the prohibition to the circumstances of the individual or not to impose the prohibition at all, it leaves the individual judge with far too much discretion.
The premise is also very disturbing. The premises are linked in that a person who commits an offence should be punished for life and a person who commits a certain type of offence will inevitably do the same thing. It is an entirely different story with a repeat offender who refuses all treatment. My party, the Liberal Party, believes that the rehabilitation of an offender is a fundamental premise of our criminal justice system. Retribution without rehabilitation is a very flawed process.
Several weeks ago I participated in a press conference with the Liberal leader to unveil the Liberal crime and justice paper. In the paper we proposed recommendations to deal with the rehabilitation of sexual offenders. Over the past five years there has been a 20.4 per cent increase in the rate of admission of sex offenders. This means that more and more sex offenders are reintegrating into Canadian communities.
As the research branch of the Correctional Service of Canada tells us, repeat sex offenders are more than twice as likely to commit further sex offences, much more likely to violate conditional release conditions and more likely than any other offenders to re-offend with a non-sexual offence. Unfortunately treatment programs for sexual offenders are lacking. The federal government is spending approximately $98 million a year to incarcerate these offenders and only $2 million a year on treatment programs. It is the norm when it should be the exception that convicted offenders are returned to their communities without counselling or rehabilitation therapy. Treatment when available has been shown to cut the recidivism rale for sex offenders by almost 50 per cent.
For these reasons the people in the opposition party recommend that first the programs be established to rehabilitate convicted sex offenders to reduce their chances of re-offending once they are released, all the while supporting tough sentences. Second, a national registry of convicted child abusers be established. This information will be made available to organizations employing people who work or volunteer with children. Three, serious sex offenders who are not cured by the

June 10, 1993
Government Orders
end of their sentences be transferred to a secure mental health facility.
After conviction but prior to sentencing the prosecutor could request that the offender's eventual release be subject to a review under provincial health laws. After serving the sentence the inmate would then be brought back to court where it would be determined if he or she is rehabilitated to return to the community. If not the person would be made a ward of the health care system until it is safe to release that person.
We believe that these amendments shore up the balance between the rights of victims and the rights of the convicted.
In closing I would like to mention a case of a young woman 15 years of age who was being harassed by telephone calls at her place of employment where she worked every evening between the hours of 6 and 10. Someone was phoning her every night, phone call after phone call. This person was only 15 years of age and was absolutely terrified. She approached me and we had the police department set up a phone tap at her place of business. The police were able to trace the call. They went to the home. The person did not deny he was making the phone calls. He was told he was to cease and desist.
A couple of months passed and the phone calls started again. The same person, even though the police knew who he was and the police had told him that he had to cease and desist, repeated those harassment calls over a matter of a couple of months.
This bill will stop that kind of nonsense and relieve that young person of the fear she had. Her parents had to come and pick her up at night to take her home from work because she was afraid to walk home alone.
I am pleased with Bill C-126. Hopefully it will be followed up with educational programs to change the attitudes within society. The mindset that has allowed family violence including stalking to flourish for so long must be abolished from Canadian society. It is only at that time women will be able to live in a fair and safe and a just society.


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 third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-103, an act to provide for the repeal of the Land Titles Act and to amend other acts in relation thereto, as reported (with amendment) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are 10 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-103, an act to provide for the repeal of the Land Titles Act and to amend other acts in relation thereto, all in the name of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq.

Motions Nos. 1 to 10 will be grouped for debate, with the vote on motion No. 1 applying to the other motions.

I shall now proceed with the putting of Motions Nos. 1 through 10 to the House.
Is there consent to have another member move the motions for the hon. member for Nunatsiaq? Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry we cannot proceed.


Hon. Shirley Martin (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that the bill be concurred in.
June 10, 1993


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Shirley Martin: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
An hon. member:: Mr. Speaker, I wished to speak on third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, I have already put it through, but I will revert with agreement of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not consent.
J(J Jtc


CANADA PETROLEUM RESOURCES ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-106, an act to amend certain petroleum related acts in respect of Canadian ownership requirements and to confirm the validity of a certain regulation, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are two motions in amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton East on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-106, an act to amend certain petroleum-related acts in respect of Canadian ownership requirements and to confirm the validity of a certain regulation.
Both motions go beyond the scope of the bill. They are introducing new concepts not contemplated in the bill as approved in principle at second reading. Therefore according to citation 698(1) of Beauchesne's sixth edition, these motions are out of order and will not be selected by the Chair.
There being no further amendments, I shall now propose to the House the motion for the concurrence of the bill at report stage.
Government Orders MEASURE TO AMEND


Shirley Martin: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ross Harvey: On division.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Shirley Martin: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed sorry that the amendments I proposed at report stage on this bill were deemed to be out of order because I think considering each in turn would have helped to focus the mind of the House on the actual import and impact of Bill C-106. The House having been denied that opportunity, I will see what I can do to rectify it at this third reading.
To start I would like to quote at length from the North American free trade agreement. I refer your attention to article 1102 in chapter eleven of the North American free trade agreement titled national treatment. It reads in section 1:
Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favourable than it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
Section 4 of article 1102 reads:
For greater certainty, no Party may
(a) impose on an investor of another party a requirement that a minimum level of equity in an enterprise in the territory of the Party be held by its nationals, other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations;
This means that the Canadian ownership rule we have had in place since 1982, which has served by virtue of the previous government policy for Canada outside the lands administered under federal jurisdiction, and the act that we are repealing here today for those areas within federal jurisdiction, which is the Canada lands in the north and the offshore areas off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, has been a requirement since 1982 that any

June 10, 1993
Government Orders
person receiving a production licence for oil or gas would have to be a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident or a corporation the shares of which are 50 per cent held by Canadians.
We should be very clear on this. What the bill before us this afternoon proposes to do is delete that Canadian ownership requirement. It means that henceforth in the areas where previously you had to have 50 per cent Canadian ownership at least to undertake production of oil and gas you will now have no minimum Canadian ownership requirement.
You could be 100 per cent Fijian or Mercurian and it would not matter. You could still go ahead. The other restrictions of course would apply but the Canadian ownership requirement would not. This brings our statute and regulations into full accord with the North American free trade agreement in articles 1102 and sections 1 and 4.
There is as well in this North American free trade agreement article 1108, reservations and exceptions. I should like now to turn to that. It reads:
Articles 1102, 1103, 1106 and 1107 do not apply to:
(a) any existing non-conforming measure that is maintained by
(i) a Party at the federal level as set out in its Schedule to Annex I or III
Even though we have maintained in statute and policy what we can call in the language of the North American free trade agreement a non-conforming measure we can do that now only if we set out in Canada's schedule to annex I basically a statement that we are maintaining this non-conforming measure.
Lo and behold that is precisely what the government did. You will find it on page I-C-23 of the North American free trade agreement. It reads in part on this annex page which deals with the sector on energy and the subsection of oil and gas:
Industry classification: SIC 071 Crude Petroleum and Natural
Gas Industries
Type of Reservation: National Treatment (Article 1102)
Level of Government: Federal
Among the measures included in the reservation are those arising out of the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, the Territorial Lands Act, the Public Lands Grants Act, the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Land Regulations.
The description of the reservation governing investment includes:
Persons who hold oil and gas production licenses or shares therein for discoveries made after March 5, 1982 must be Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada, permanent residents or corporations incorporated in Canada. No production license may be issued for discoveries made after March 5,1982 unless the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is satisfied that the Canadian ownership rate of the interest-owner in relation to the production license on the date of issuance would not be less than 50 per cent.
That is the golden umbrella beneath which we sheltered our Canadian ownership requirement from the North American free trade agreement. However there is a catch. I will read article 1108 again: "Articles 1102, 1103, 1106 and 1107 do not apply to a) any existing non-conforming measure that is maintained".
"Any existing non-conforming measure". With the anticipated passage of Bill C-106 we are removing, deleting, and eradicating our existing non-conforming measure. This having been done, we will not hereafter, for so long as the North American free trade agreement is in effect, be allowed to return to a regime of Canadian ownership requirements.
What we are proposing to do today is delete in perpetuity the ability of the Canadian people through their Parliament to determine that some minimum percentage of the strategic petroleum industry must be undertaken and maintained by Canadian nationals. Henceforth, that ability of the Canadian people to determine this element in their economic fate will be gone. That is the import of Bill C-106.
Some people will say that is okay, it does not matter, who cares? They will say that we are getting globalized, capital is moving back and forth and borders are meaningless. Unfortunately that thesis is simply incorrect and the experience of Canada in this regard is decisively instructive.
For better than a decade now the Petroleum Monitoring Agency has been keeping records about the inflow and outflow of capital into and out of Canada within the petroleum industry. It has been keeping these records in a series of different accounts. The record is abundantly clear.
June 10, 1993


An hon. member:: Abundantly clear?


Ross Harvey: It is abundantly clear. It is inescapably clear. It could not be clearer if it came up to him with a sledge-hammer and beaned him.
What it shows is that for the period from 1980 to 1990-and this is not a particularly odd decade in these regards; we could choose any other decade and find the same thing-while Canadian controlled companies in the petroleum industry generated a net inflow of $1.5 billion into Canada foreign controlled companies in the Canadian petroleum industry generated a net outflow of $25.3 billion.
That can only be described as a terrible drain on the Canadian economy. It unquestionably cost us millions of jobs. It unquestionably dampened whatever economic activity we might otherwise have obtained and it unquestionably continues to harm our economy. That is the price of foreign control in the petroleum industry. It is clear and it is plain. It should come as a surprise to no one.
In Bill C-106 we are proposing to replicate on the Canada lands precisely those conditions which led to this grotesque outflow of capital from Canada in consequence of foreign control and ownership from the western sedimentary basin in the decade of the 1980s.
These facts are so plain, so clear and so compelling that one stands in amazement, grasping for some reason that any government with the Canadian national interest in mind would propose such an absurd bill.
I must say, short of what borders on conspiracy theory on the one hand or actions of rank stupidity on the other, I find it difficult to come up with a reasonable explanation. The explanation that has been fronted by the industry touts-for example the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers which masquerades as a Canadian association but which is principally, not exclusively, a front for the American controlled companies that operate in Canada-submitted a letter to the committee that allegedly studied the bill which said: "Capital migrates to countries where the opportunities offer attractive terms and demonstrate competitive yields. The Canadian own-
Govemment Orders
ership restrictions discourage needed capital inflows". Is that not ironic?
It continued: "The Canadian ownership restrictions discourage needed capital inflows by suggesting to foreign investors that their capital is neither needed nor welcome. This is a negative signal, the end result of which is that opportunities for Canadian companies are undermined since they are reliant on capital inflow for development".
Clearly this is a captious argument and it is so precisely because it is saying this legislation will have benefit for Canadian companies when the whole point is to allow the greater activity in the Canada lands of non-Canadian companies. Without wishing to sound too derisive I think we can safely say that the argument advanced by the CAPP and others in this regard is at best self-serving.
This brings me to the final mystery I wish to contemplate this afternoon. Why in the name of sweet reason does the Official Opposition find itself supporting this bill? On a recorded division at second reading, every Liberal present in the House rose in support of this bill. I suspect if we were to undertake a recorded division at third reading we would find the same thing. This is a mystery to me.
Over the years I have disagreed with the liberal Party of Canada on many things but I always thought that at least it was a quasi-nationalist party. It amazes me that a quasi-nationalist party could bring itself to support this odious little piece of comprador selling out. I do not understand it.
I rather look forward to any of the Liberal members here this afternoon getting up to say how the party of Pearson, Trudeau, St. Laurent, Mackenzie King or any of the reasonable Liberal Prime Ministers we have experienced in this nation's history can support this unfortunate, costly, shameful, and comprador piece of legislation. I look forward to it but I do not anticipate it.
I have no doubt that this bill will pass. The government's majority will ensure that. However no argument has been adduced at second reading, in committee or thus far this afternoon which can possibly support the passage of this bill in the face of the certain negative consequences.

June 10, 1993
Government Orders
In summary, what is proposed this afternoon is that we strip from the Canadian people forever, or least for as long as the North American free trade agreement remains in effect, their ability to reserve petroleum development in the Canada lands for Canadians by Canadians and in the Canadian interest. We are stripping that away and we do so knowing full well that over the long term the principal consequence of that will be the massive export of needed capital from our country.
I would welcome anyone rising in this House this afternoon to make a compelling and logical argument as to why in the face of these certainties this House should support this bill. In fact I defy any member present to attempt it.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear my friend from Edmonton East.
I want to talk to this bill on third reading because I think it is a very important bill. It is a bill that perhaps does need a fair amount of examination, but we have been through that. Examination has been done and we are at the final stages of this Parliament and I find it very interesting that some of the old arguments have started all over again.
As I understand this bill its purpose is to relax the foreign investment rules on March 25, 1992, which essentially were meant in respect to all. It was meant not only to apply to the conventional areas but also to the frontier lands, those north of 60 degrees, and the offshore which is controlled by the federal government.
It was very clear that my friend was not in favour of the relaxation of the foreign investment rules. For this reason he was very much against Bill C-106 on the grounds that it was essentially a sell-out. I am not sure if he used the term but he indicated that he was concerned about the energy sell-out.
That is one point of view but there are a number of things we had to consider in the third reading of this bill. To begin with I think there may be general agreement that the federal government in the last few years has done very little to assist the Canadian oil and gas sector during this period of great difficulty for it, one of our
major resources. It is in difficulty essentially because of low profitability.
In the general sense the idea is that the relaxation of the foreign investment rules would likely do very little to address the economic problems but by the same token, and I do appreciate what the hon. member had to say, we are caught in a crossfire between trying to do something to develop the resource and at the same time trying to restrict foreign investment and the present rules on foreign investment with respect to the oil industry as they exist. It is a very delicate balance. We tend to come down on the other side of the balance than do the NDP. In the moments ahead I may be able to explain why.
I should also point out that it is my understanding that Bill C-106 will also have the effect of amending the following legislation: the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, and the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.
I took a personal interest in this because of the existence of the megaproject, Hibernia, smack in the centre of my riding. In the case of Hibernia it was exempt from the foreign investment ownership rule because it was discovered before 1982 and the 50 per cent Canadian requirement did not really apply. However foreign investment restrictions apply to the other oil fields in the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. This is significant because more than 50 per cent of the reserves in the Terra Nova field are for sale and an open investment policy may speed up its sale. That is one concern there.
As I said earlier, the oil and gas sector in Canada is in great difficulty. I am sure the hon. member who just spoke knows this, and in fact anybody from western Canada involved in the energy and oil natural resources sector would be aware of it. It is in a financial crisis with poor profit prospects.
I have sat in on some of the committee meetings and these poor prospects are not only for now and next year in line with the economic slump we are in. The projections are that it will be in difficulty for the next couple of years. I hope this situation will not last until the turn of the century but certainly the indication from all the oil economists is that the energy industry and the oil and gas sector will be in difficulty until at least 1995. Mass
June 10, 1993

lay-offs are still anticipated in the upstream and downstream sectors.
As an individual I have a great affinity and a great feel for a major industry that involves lay-offs and for any remedial measures that may be considered in order to alleviate the situation.
If I could be permitted to give a comparison it perhaps would help the hon. member see the motivation behind at least where I am coming from and I am sure the party. In Newfoundland we have the northern cod moratorium. Fishing is a major industry for that region of Canada. The northern cod stocks have all but disappeared from Newfoundland. Essentially 22,000 people have been laid off. They are on a cod moratorium. That could be called, in anybody's definition and particularly in a country with a labour force as low as 13 million people, 22,000 in a province with roughly 300,000 workers, a massive lay-off.
I would also say parenthetically that in response to the moratorium, which is only a piecemeal measure and should be expected from a government that essentially has mismanaged the fishery, the compensation will go on for as long as the moratorium exists as far as I am concerned and as far as my party is concerned.
In this case the government has two parallel actions which are going in different directions. While the government is paying compensation to 22,000 northern cod workers and other thousands with the most recent package on the one hand, on the other hand we have 103 foreign vessels off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland illegally fishing and the government will not do anything to stop them.
The government is saying: "It is too bad about the fishery. We are going to compensate you, but by the same token we are going to let foreigners catch fish illegally. However if you catch fish in Newfoundland, in your own waters, we will make sure that you go to court, your boat and belongings are seized and that you will be prosecuted and probably sent to jail". In that case we have two policies going in the opposite direction from the same government.
In this case it would seem the government does realize that because of the potential of massive lay-offs on the west coast of Canada and on the prairies in the Calgary
Government Orders
area and in the oil field area of Canada, there should be a more parallel action on the part of the government. This bill is the impetus behind it.
It is possible, in relation to the oil and gas industry, that opening it up to foreign investment would mean an important source of technology, knowledge, and more important, investment capital. As I say, it is a balance and we have to draw the line somewhere.
It was interesting that we were criticized by the present government for allowing foreign investment and for looking at foreign investment in a certain way. Now the government is opening up the doors a little bit to foreign investment in order to help an industry that is in difficulty. In this particular case I personally have no difficulty with that.
The line is drawn, irrespective of the policies of the predecessors or the leaders and Prime Ministers of my party in the last 100 years. Times are changing and we have to look at the circumstances as they are now and apply remedial and legislative action to ensure that we get the best bang for the buck in the industries that we have. If that involves some measures with respect to foreign investment and legislation then so be it. We have to go along with that.
The oil and gas industry in the last few years is giving a return of 4 per cent to 5 per cent. That is not a very attractive rate. I want to quantify the difficulty it is in. That does not even keep up essentially with the interest rates that are paid on blue chip investment. There is no question about it, we have some great difficulty here.
The total oil and gas revenue and cash flow was reduced by $130 million for every 1 per cent increase in the exchange rate. On top of the low productivity and the low return, we are being very adversely affected by the change in the exchange rate. Given that the industry reinvests a large portion of its cash flow into new exploration and development, the high Canadian dollar until recent reductions had been at least partly responsible for the low rate of exploration and development in Canada. Investment capital is desperately needed in the industry and one way to get it would be precisely through what this bill is doing, relaxing the foreign ownership rules. However, it is recognized by all that this would be a short-term benefit. The industry would have to live or die on its own, depending on what happens after the combination of the economic downturn which has not

June 10, 1993
Government Orders
really turned around yet despite what the government may suggest in the various budgets, and the increased, we hope, impetus due to this legislation which hopefully will be passed today.
It is in the nation's best interest to take this step. Clearly I would because I would not be here speaking about it otherwise. What implication would selling a stake in the industry have?


An hon. member:: Capital exports.


Fred J. Mifflin: Capital exports or some people may say exploitation or sellout. Frankly I do not see the weight on that side of the issue.
If I could summarize, we in the Liberal Party are sympathetic to the need for new capital in the oil industry. I believe it is needed.
I would do no less if it were required in the fisheries industry to alleviate the massive lay-off in Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. It would be hypocritical of me to stand up and not to speak in favour of this bill because essentially all we are doing is applying the same principle which unfortunately cannot be applied in this total sense to the fishery industry.
I would like to see the government take functional jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the bank. That is what I would consider to be equivalent to the measures that are being proposed by this bill.
The bill is essentially saying that yes, there are risks in taking this action. But we are taking the risk to reduce the restrictions on foreign investment in this industry because we feel that on balance it will help the industry.
In the case of the fishery industry, the same risk pertains. If we announce functional jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the bank beyond the 200-mile limit, we may have some difficulty in trading with Spain and Portugal, which is in the vicinity of about $175 million. It may affect other industries and we may have difficulties with maritime law at the international law courts in Geneva. We have had two emergency debates in this House on the subject and my colleagues and I believe that the risk is worth the gain.
I want the government to take note that the Liberal Party is prepared to take the risk in the case of the part
of the world that relies on the oil and gas industry. I would counsel them to take the same kind of risk in the few days remaining in this Parliament for the fishery in Newfoundland with respect to functional jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and to stop foreign fishermen from taking the resources that Newfoundlanders are not allowed to use themselves right now.
In summary, I believe that given the circumstances and the need for the oil and gas industry to get out of the slump it is in, we support this bill. I look forward to any other comments that people may have with respect to the risk and the balance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member, I have received written notice from the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Monday, June 14, 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 the item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) the House will meet to consider Government Orders at 11 o'clock a.m.

Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister
of Forestry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes of the time of the House to speak in support of Bill C-106, which in my opinion is an extremely important piece of legislation. It is, in fact, an economic development tool for the Canadian petroleum industry.
I also want to allay the fears raised by my NDP colleague that this legislation will cause an outflow of capital to other countries and that Canadians will no longer be free to develop their own oil industry as they see fit.
What the bill says is quite straightforward: The 50 per cent Canadian ownership requirement will no longer apply. But on the other hand, the bill says that only a corporation incorporated in Canada may hold a production licence or share in a production licence.
June 10,1993

If a corporation is incorporated in Canada, it is subject to our laws. As my Liberal colleague pointed out, this bill will make it possible for foreign capital to be invested in this country and will promote the transfer of advanced technologies that are found throughout the world. It will help Canadian workers and Canadian industry compete on domestic and international markets. It will help attract investment that will be able to spend more on various programs.
I will be brief, however, because I know my Liberal colleagues support the bill. Incidentally, my NDP colleague wondered why the Liberals were in favour of this bill. The answer is quite simple. It is a sensible piece of legislation that respects the industry as well Canadian sovereignty and identity. Therefore the petroleum industry can look forward to a more prosperous future.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks. As did the hon. member from Newfoundland, the hon. member who just spoke mentioned among other things that this bill would make it possible-please do not leave-


Mr. Champagne:: I am staying. I am not from Newfoundland.


Ross Harvey: I mentioned him in addition to the hon. member. The bill will make it possible that there be technology transfers to Canada presumably from other places on the planet where foreign corporations have developed technology that we can use here and thus better exploit our resources.
I suspect the hon. member who has just spoken and who is the parliamentary secretary is aware of the fact that Canada currently enjoys an overwhelming positive trade balance in oilfield technology. In fact, we are among the technological leaders on the planet. In those areas that would be affected by the bill, which is to say the Canada lands and the offshore, we have the leading technology in the world today. They are Canadian technologies.
I am not quite certain what technologies the parliamentary secretary and the member from Newfoundland were speaking of when they said that this bill might facilitate a greater infusion of technology. We have it. It
Government Orders
is here. It is ours. We make our money selling it internationally.
The question I want to put to the hon. member is whether, in his opinion, there is any correlation between the introduction of this bill and its support by the government party and the Official Opposition and the fact that both received very generous donations from the foreign controlled oil companies. The donation that springs to mind immediately was in 1991 when I believe $49,000 was given to each of them by Imperial Oil. As well thousands and thousands of dollars come to each of them from virtually all the foreign controlled petroleum companies operating in Canada. I would like to know whether he sees any correlation.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member sees problems where there are none. What I want to say is this: If we have a large share of the technology and if we want to keep developing that technology, we need capital.
I don't think any sensible Canadian would close the door on investment that would create jobs for Canadians from all provinces and promote further development of Canadian technology, because we want to invest in research and development. That is exactly what the bill says. Let's forget Canadian ownership but keep statutory control over the corporation incorporated under Canadian law. That is what the bill does. It opens the door to investment in order to expand the horizons of the Canadian energy sector and the industry as such. This legislation is important to maintain investment in the industry and to develop our technology.


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.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.

June 10, 1993
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried on division.


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


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West) moved: that Bill C-417, an act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, thank you and the members who are here this afternoon when we do not have to be here on a Friday. There are so many who are in support of this bill.
This is one of those bills that began with a telephone call about three months ago from someone who is a gun collector who informed me that due to a legal interpretation of an old law the situation had changed rather dramatically.
For many years under the existing law, people who purchased a restricted weapon would bring it to a fire arms registrar for examination and they would be given a temporary conveyance permit to take it home. That had gone on for years. All of a sudden there was an interpretation that the fire arms registrar could not give them the weapon to take back home. On the surface that may not seem like a problem but it is a problem and creates a somewhat unsafe situation.
This House spent many hours over a couple of years dealing with changes to the Criminal Code to make the gun situation in this country safer. We said in clear unequivocal terms that anyone who wished to possess a restricted weapon must provide safe storage for that weapon as part of the conditions of a permit. There could be examination of that safe storage and so on.
All of a sudden we have a change in legal interpretation that keeps those guns away from that safe storage. It has taken up to six months for permanent registration certificates to be issued. This puts responsibility on the part of the fire arms registrar in many situations in this country and in particular in rural situations where there is just not adequate storage available for the quantity of weapons that begin to pile up.
What I propose today is something I asked the House of Commons legal branch to draft that would give a permissive power to a fire arms registrar to allow someone to take that fire arm back to the safe storage when he or she already have a permit to own a restricted weapon which means they have safe storage.
It would not apply to people purchasing a weapon of this kind for the first time and it is not compulsory for the fire arms registrar tell someone to take it home. It is permissive and a person can fill out a form that would allow that gun to move from the fire arms registrar office to the owner's place when there is safe storage for the weapon.
I do not think it is worth the time of the House to have three hours of debate and a votable motion at the end of that time. I think the committee in its wisdom decided that this is not one of the items that should come to a vote.
It leaves the House in the position of deciding unanimously to make this change which we could do today through all stages and if the House was predisposed to do that. I have copies of some minor changes which have been recommended to me by the Department of Justice that would make the bill work just a little bit better as an amendment to the Criminal Code. Those are prepared. I have them in sufficient quantity for everybody in the House. If anyone would like them I would ask a page to come and make them available to them. There is no point in going through those changes unless we find out the will of the House. I think it might be in order to allow members who wish to speak to this to do so. Perhaps they could indicate whether they think it is a good idea for the House act. If we were to move it through all stages this afternoon, it could go to the Senate the first part of next week and pass through there relatively quickly as well. It is an administrative change that I think makes sense for everybody.
June 10, 1993

It simply wants to enable restricted weapons to be stored in a safer situation than the law allows currently and that was the will of the House historically and overwhelmingly so. This would just extend that principle.
I invite my colleagues to make comments and indicate whether there is a predisposition on the part of the House to do this unanimously and put it in place as quickly as possible to take that danger away. I thank the House for its attention.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to speak. I do not speak very often on private member's bills because so many go through the House that will never see the light of day.
This is a very good piece of legislation that my colleague from Calgary West has put forward because it is just straight common sense. I want to lay out the concerns that gun owners have with the present situation as it exists and the suggestion in Bill C-417 that my colleague from Calgary West has put forward.
In the last few days in my riding of Kenora-Rainy River I called the different police stations in such communities as Kenora, Dryden and Sioux Lookout to verify whether my colleague from Calgary West was correct. I asked them what kind of difficulties they were having with the permits that go to individuals who want to register their restricted firearms.
One of the problems they are having is that those firearms have to be stored somewhere until the owner receives a permit from the provincial registrar. That may not seem to be a major concern to those who are not too familiar with firearms, but when we have major gun clubs in communities like Kenora, Dryden and Sioux Lookout, literally hundreds and in some cases thousands of firearms can change hands on a yearly basis. In rural Canada these small detachments have only limited space for storage. We have created an administrative nightmare for no reason.
My colleague is asking us to just use good common sense in this particular private member's bill. We should allow those individuals who already own registered firearms to take their newly acquired firearms home and store them in their own approved storage facilities to
Private Members' Business
make sure a very valuable piece of equipment is looked after until the permit is received.
This private member's bill wants to allow individuals, who have already been searched by the police department and checked out thoroughly, who have proven to be conscientious gun owners in the past and know and have passed certain tests relating to the handling of firearms, to meet the requirements under this private member's bill.
One of the biggest concerns of gun owners and police officers who have to store these firearms is that they can be worth from $500 to $3,000. The police department has had to wait up to six weeks in the last year and in previous years anywhere from three months to six months for permits. That particular firearm was under severe threat of losing its value because of the fact that it could get rust on it and it was not maintained simply because the police department is not set up to do those kinds of things.
In conclusion I want to say that this will not only save money for gun owners and for police departments that will not have to administer a particular piece of the act that is not necessary, but it will also streamline the system for all those concerned. It retains the safety and integrity of the system that we now know and want to keep in place but at the same time it is a smart piece of legislation just because of its practicality.
I would like to concur with my colleague the member for Calgary West that we attempt to go through all stages tonight and pass it here in this place and send it to the Senate simply because to delay this and send it to committee would not serve any purpose because of the obvious result of this piece of legislation.
I want to thank my colleague for putting forward a very intelligent piece of legislation. I urge the members of the House here today to consider giving unanimous consent to pass it at all stages.


Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-417 put forward by the hon. member for Calgary West.
This is simply a very practical proposition and response to representations that a number of us in the House have received. I am really delighted and I encourage members

June 10, 1993
Private Members' Business
on all sides of the House to support this and to allow us to proceed with this as expeditiously as possible.
There are many members in the House today who have worked hard on this issue and on the pre-study. The hon. members for Cariboo-Chilcotin, Kenora- Rainy River and our colleague here from Cape Breton also worked on this. We have heard from many people involved in the firearms community. We have heard those representations and I certainly endorse this very important practical bill, C-417.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a couple of things on this bill because I believe it is a very practical bill. I do not think it requires a lot of debate.
I just want to assure any of those who are watching that over the two years, as has been mentioned, when the new legislation was fashioned we were not all happy necessarily with the balance that was created. However we recognize why that balance ended up where it was.
I just wanted to assure my colleagues and those who are interested in this issue that I do not see that this change does anything to disrupt that balance. It is in fact correcting a situation that we had not foreseen and it just makes the system not only more efficient but in fact safer.
One of the reasons why it makes it safer is that many of the firearms officers who are RCMP officers are not equipped to handle the storage of these guns. In terms of safety of storage it is in fact the person who already has at least one registered gun who probably has safer storage to provide than that of local police shop.
In rural situations my constituents find in many cases that the restricted weapon that they are trying to acquire may be in Vancouver. It requires in some cases a return trip some six, seven or eight months later to pick up the weapon. It is just not practical and it is inconveniencing legitimate gun owners.
I also would encourage members of the House to expedite movement of this bill through all stages today.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I see no one else rising and I wonder if now might be the appropriate time to put the question as to whether or not we have unanimous consent to deal with this bill at all
stages.
If the answer to that question is yes then I think there would have to be a series of subsequent steps and I would like to be recognized again on another point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent to allow the motion to go through at all stages?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent.
There being no further members rising for debates, the time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper. Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting to the call of the bell?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.18 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 5.31 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Further to the announcement the Chair made concerning Private Members' Business I wish to state there is now the possibility of an exchange. Consequently on Monday at 11 a.m. Motion No. 677 will be taken up.
June 10, 1993



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, do you remember where you were on the morning of June 23, 1985? That was almost eight years ago now.
Dr. Bal K. Gupta remembers. Dr. H. S. Radhakrishna remembers. The Aurora family remembers. The Jain family remembers. The Khan family, the Patel family, the Sharma family, the Singh family, the Uppal family, the Castonguay family and many others remember.
They remember, Mr. Speaker, and you may remember as well because that was the morning that we and they received the shocking and the horrifying news that many members of their families had perished on Air India flight 182. That was a flight bound from Toronto via Montreal to London and New Delhi. It plunged into the ocean off the coast of Ireland killing some 329 innocent men, women and children. Two hundred and seventy-nine of those people were Canadian citizens and they came from every corner of this country and every province from Newfoundland to British Columbia.
The very same day a bomb went off in connection with another Air India flight originating in Canada. That bomb went off at Tokyo's Narita International Airport and killed two Japanese citizens and injured four others.
Long ago an investigation was conducted and completed in Ireland in connection with the Air India flight 182. Long ago an investigation was conducted and completed in India but an investigation of this tragedy has been under way now in Canada for almost eight years. It is still going on and there have never been charges laid or convictions registered in connection with this.
There have been allegations that there were warnings made in connection with this flight that were ignored. There have been allegations that evidence has been destroyed. Last year the RCMP raised wreckage from the floor of the ocean off Ireland but on June 1 of this
Adjournment Debate
year the Solicitor General told the House that the investigation continues to be active and ongoing, eight years later.
Is it any wonder that the families and friends of those 279 Canadians who perished are frustrated, angry and bitter?
Surely it is time that either charges are laid or if that is not possible we institute a judicial inquiry immediately.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, a terrible tragedy took place on June 23, eight years ago, when Air India flight 182 crashed in the Irish sea, killing 329 passengers.
On the premise that the explosion was caused by a bomb placed in the aircraft by terrorists. Canada embarked on the most extensive and costliest criminal investigation in its history.
Three times, under difficult conditions, the RCMP initiated operations at sea in an attempt to recover evidence. This particular incident and other acts of terrorism in Canada and abroad have caused the government to undertake a thorough review of our national security and anti-terrorist system, including anti-terrorist measures in the civil aviation sector.
As hon. members are probably aware, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Sollicitor General on April 29, 1993, the Commissioner of the RCMP gave the assurance that the investigation was ongoing. The government feels it is extremely important the the perpetrators of this crime be brought to justice. The government makes no apology for spending whatever money is necessary to find the perpetrators of this heinous crime.
The government sees no purpose in holding a public inquiry, however, because this exercise, in dealing with the circumstances of the tragedy, might prejudice the progress of the current police investigation and jeopardize court cases.
The government has certainly not forgotten the innocent families that have been through so much and wants to give them the assurance that it is doing everything to ensure that justice is done.

June 10, 1993
Adjournment Debate


ARMED FORCES
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of National Defence on April 2.
The question and subsequent events cause me to want to follow this up more than I have on any other occasion on the late show.
The question was to the Minister of Defence which in her absence was answered by the House leader of the government. It was: Why did it take from the March 16 to the end of March, a period of two and a half weeks for information about a major incident that happened in Somalia, namely the death of a Somalian at the hands of peacekeepers, to reach the Canadian public? Why was it made known the way it was: essentially accidentally from a member of the media? And more precisely, why did the Minister of National Defence not inform this House or at least the Canadian public what had happened?
The House leader's response to me was that everything happened the way it should have happened. It was done the way it was done because investigations were going on and attributed the motivation for my question to the fact that the Minister of National Defence was running for the Conservative leadership. Normally I might have had a point of privilege on that, but because of the gravity of the events I did not want to get involved in any action of that nature. I avoided mixing up the issues with an issue of personal privilege.
You may recall that after April 2 we had an Easter break and we came back to the House again. On April 19, two weeks later, I then asked the Minister of National Defence who was in the House, the same question as to why she did not tell the public of the event in Somalia the day after or within a reasonable period of time after it happened. The minister got up and said to me that it was all the mistake of national defence. It was an incredible thing. She said it was a regrettable mistake and that national defence had the information but instead of releasing the information in Canada it released it in theatre.
That just does not wash because to begin with there were members of the media in Belet Huen where this
incident occurred. A press release was issued but it was issued in Mogadishu, 260 kilometres away. There were members of the media there when it happened and not only were they not told about it, they were diverted from any knowledge of the incident.
I followed up the question the next day on April 20 and asked the Minister of National Defence, answered by the government House leader, why the minister did not tell the House. The answer I got was very much obfusca-tory and very confusing.
Subsequent events have shown that this incident occurred on March 16. The Minister of National Defence was briefed on March 17. A member involved in this was incarcerated on March 18 and the minister subsequently said that she did not know anything had involved murder or homicide until March 31.
To begin with, if the minister was briefed on this she would have been briefed on the total issue. She would have known that the Canadian media did not carry the stories the next day. Therefore I find it absolutely preposterous that the minister would not cause-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of uninformed comment on recent events.
It contrasts with the remarkable praise Canadian forces personnel have received elsewhere. They have received praise from a Canadian surgeon working with an American NGO who wants people to know that Canadian troops really did a good job and praise from Somalis who said that Canadians had shown them respect and did not want them to leave.
Yes, there have also been disturbing events. They are being dealt with so let us review what we know of these events and make up our own minds. Each of the four Somali events has been or is being investigated.
In each case the Canadian forces gave public notice of the incident. The details are on public record and were summarized in the minister's statement in the House on April 26, 1993.
June 10, 1993

I would also like to comment on the board of inquiry of the Canadian Airborne Regiment Battle Group which was convened by the chief of defence staff at the minister's request.
As the Minister of National Defence has said, she was confronted by the dual imperative of her responsibility for the management and direction of the Canadian forces on the one hand and on the other her quasi-judicial responsibilities in the military system of justice.
In those roles she has balanced the need to inform the public and Parliament with the need to ensure that the military justice system is not prejudiced. Mindful of her responsibility she sought advice on how best to address a variety of concerns and directed the chief of the defence staff to convene a board of inquiry.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, on March 17 of this year I asked the Prime Minister why the current policies prohibiting sexual harassment in the military were not working.
The Minister of National Defence, occupied elsewhere today, replied by stating that a report was issued outlining the actual policy dealing with sexual harassment. While the minister maintained that the report emphasized the policy of zero tolerance for sexual harassment in the Canadian forces the report failed, abysmally I might add, to mention any means of effectively enforcing that policy.
Currently, many cases of sexual harassment are not reported for fear of retaliation. The victims of such abuse must have some form of recourse without fear of reprisal. However this report from the minister offers no such guarantees. It offers no encouragement to those who have suffered harassment to report such incidents.
Therefore the harassment continues as the perpetrators realize they will not be reported. This is not zero tolerance and it is not acceptable.
More than one-quarter of the women in the Canadian military say they have been sexually harassed over the past year. However only one in five women lodged a formal complaint. Those who did feared it hurt then-careers.
In addition, it was revealed that there are serious problems in the way the military handles harassment complaints. Of those who complained 68.7 per cent were
Adjournment Debate
not happy with the results. It is very clear from the report released by the minister that the government has not addressed this issue sufficiently.
The victims of sexual harassment did not deserve to be further victimized. The people of Canada are worth more than that which the government has offered. They deserve protection from the offenders and peace of mind through the knowledge that reporting these matters will not result in further problems.
What does the minister propose to do to reconcile this matter and to protect these victims?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, on March 17, 1993 the Minister of National Defence tabled Canadian forces harassment policy.
This formal policy, aligned with Treasury Board policy, has been in place since 1988. The policy is that harassment in any form, whether personal, sexual or abuse of power, is unacceptable conduct and will not be condoned in the Canadian forces in any way. Our ultimate goal is zero incidents, that is we hope to eliminate harassment entirely.
In follow-up to a commitment made on March 17, 1993 to make available further information regarding the CF and its harassment policy review, the Minister of National Defence tabled a package of documents in the House of Commons. The package tabled on May 5 included a report of the findings of a survey of 5,800 members administered confidentially regarding issues related to harassment policy and its implementation in the CF, and a more general report on the Canadian Forces approach to harassment in the work place.
We are launching an aggressive communication, education and training program to stop harassment before it starts. The CF proposes the creation of a CF harassment program co-ordination office at NDHQ to monitor and track any incidents of harassment, consult with harassment advisers and co-ordinate harassment, education and training programs and materials.
Further, the revisions in the plan are actively being pursued. These initiatives are strong evidence that the CF takes this issue very seriously and is providing leadership and guidance through concrete measures to improve its approach to personal harassment.

June 10, 1993
Adjournment Debate EMPLOYMENT


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, on March 22,1 raised two questions in the House. I want to make sure I am not unfair here. I will read the first question. I want you to be the judge, Mr. Speaker, because I know you to be a fair member.
I said there were almost 50,000 unemployed men and women in Manitoba and that roughly one-quarter of them were young people aged 15 to 24. Manitoba has the country's highest and unfortunately fastest growing rate of child poverty. Manitobans are tired of this despair. They want action. I asked the government what specific measures it was prepared to take to get these people back to work.
To be fair, this is the answer I received from the hon. Minister of State for Finance and Privatization:
Mr. Speaker, time would not allow me to list the number of
endeavours this government has undertaken, but we could start with
the $3.8 billion we are spending in training and retraining.
That is the point and he missed it. I asked what specific measures were being undertaken to address the question of poverty and the question of youth unemployment. He tells me how much the government is spending. I appreciate that. I knew that.
However, in spite of the fact that they are spending $3.8 billion, the question they have to ask is: Why is it that there are 1.6 million Canadians unemployed-some say it is twice that much because so many people have given up-2.2 million Canadians who will be fed in food banks this year, and 2.7 million Canadians receiving social assistance? I am told there are in fact 300,000 jobs available today but we do not have the trained people to fill them.
When they are spending that much money and they still has all these social problems, they ought to be doing something about it.
I want to quote my second question to make sure that I do not mislead anyone.

The minister tells us that his policies will deal with the situation. That is false. Why is there so much unemployment-25 per cent of young people in Manitoba-so much poverty in Manitoba-the highest poverty rate among young people in Canada and unfortunately the highest rate of poverty among the whole population? Why do so many people rely on food banks in Manitoba? What will the government do to put these people back to work?

This is what I receive as a response. The hon. Minister of State for Finance and Privatization says that I minimize the importance of training and retraining. He did not answer my question. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you know that is why I am here this evening.
The adjournment proceedings are precisely for this purpose. When we ask the minister a question and the minister does not answer the question adequately, appropriately and precisely, we have an opportunity to come here to seek redress, to try to get a specific answer.

That is what I want this evening, answers to my questions. What is the government prepared to do to put these young people back to work, to lower the poverty rate in Manitoba? Is it ready to act with specific policies? I do not want statistics. Statistics do not take care of people, do not take care of Manitobans and do not take care of other Canadians either.

All I want is this. Is the government prepared to do something specific for Manitobans? Yes or no. If it is yes, what is it prepared to do? That is it.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to answer a question from the Official Opposition when it wants specifics. I wonder how specific it will be in its commitments in the upcoming election.
The government has always made training one of its highest priorities and is committed to helping every Canadian participate in and meet the skill requirements of the labour market both now and in the future.
I know that the Official Opposition does not like statistics but I think if we are going to answer for what we are doing, we need to give specifics.
June 10, 1993

In support of the government I am proud to say that in 1993 for the province of Manitoba alone, almost $130 million has been made available through EIC's programs and services. This will help to ensure that Manitobans can and will gain the training and work experience they need to find lasting and rewarding employment.
In Manitoba, as part of our ongoing priorities for 1993-94, EIC will continue to help laid-off workers through significant labour adjustment measures. We will look to improving access to our funding for aboriginal peoples, through Pathways. We will continue on with the reselection of Community Futures communities.
We recognize that youth unemployment in Manitoba and across this country is at an unacceptable level now. Accordingly this government has a number of programs
Adjournment Debate
available that will help our youth receive the best service possible. Some of EIC's youth initiatives include the Summer Employment/Experience Development, the SEED program; the Stay-in-School, SIS initiative; and the Co-operative Education Program.
In 1993 this government will spend approximately $6 million in Manitoba on the Stay-in-School initiative and SEED which is an increase of approximately $250 million from 1992.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.52 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, June 7, 1993, the House stands adjourned until Monday, June 14, 1993 at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.52 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 14, 1993