Mr. Waddell:

It beats Joey Smallwood.

Mr. Crosbie:

It is certainly a daunting task to see the spurious indignation gather on their brows as they rise to ask a question. But I have no doubt that our colleagues opposite in the Liberal ranks will quickly develop the same amount of spurious indignation and vainglorious air that the NDP have. But they will keep us on our toes.

I want to congratulate the former Solicitor General on his new position as justice critic. The hon. gentleman, who is now the financial critic for the Opposition, is not here today, but it was just several months ago that he became Minister of Justice. Early in June he was appointed by the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) as Minister of Justice. As I said at his roast a week or two ago, lo and behold, within three months justice had triumphed! Now he is the finance critic and I am the Minister of Justice. This is the reward you get for all your hard work, Mr. Speaker!

So now, justice having triumphed, we are here and I look forward in the next three or four years to the Opposition keeping us on our toes. The more effective they can be, the better it will be for us. I invite them to ask me the toughest, meanest, dirtiest kinds of questions they can, and I will respond in my usual statesman-like fashion. I move second reading of the Bill.

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):

Mr. Speaker, in taking the floor for the first time as justice critic I would like to respond to the warm good wishes of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and extend my own warm good wishes to him. I know he does not have the job that he wanted. At least, I understand that he does not have the job that he wanted. However, I gathered from his expose of his priorities that he is moving forward into what I have certainly always considered a job of vital importance to Canada and to all Canadians.

I would like to address for a moment the menu that he laid out of his plans for the coming parliamentary session. I look forward to dealing with all the issues which he raised. I must

November 8, 1984

express disappointment that some of them will be delayed even as long as to the beginning of next year, as he indicated. For example, the Minister talked about righteous indignation from this side. However, it actually happened that there was righteous indignation from the other side when we indicated that the problems of street prostitution and pornography would be referred to the Fraser Commission. Tories asked why it should be referred to a commission when we all know what should be done, or at least the Conservatives know what should be done. Wherever I went during the election campaign I heard the Tory solution for dealing with street prostitution. Now I learn from the Minister, in his first intervention in the House, that they are waiting for the Fraser Commission which was set up by the former Government to deal with street prostitution. That is unbelievable. I wonder what the Tories from the West Coast will be telling their constituents has led the Government to lose the sense of purpose which it had to deal with that subject.

I hope the Minister will address that issue sooner. I agree with the public protest on the subject. I think it is a subject which does need action and I am disappointed, as I know all of the supporters of the Government must be, that the new Government will be waiting for the Fraser Commission to report.

With regard to the other aspect, the subject of pornography, it has become even more urgent as a result of the decision last week, on which the Minister of Justice must surely have been briefed by his officials. Stores in the Province of Ontario which were formerly under municipal regulation as to the exposing of sexually explicit material are now no longer subject to regulations. Sexually explicit material in Ontario can again be put lawfully within reach and view of the entire community, including children and the areas of public schools.

This was an issue in which my own municipality and the other municipalities in my region had acted by putting forward by-laws which worked well but which have now been found to be invalid. So the pornography issue, even more than the prostitution issue, is an urgent issue for action. This Government, with the tremendous mandate it has, is waiting for the Fraser Commission to report on subjects about which they knew all the answers during the election. Now we find we must wait.

In his remarks the Minister spoke about bringing forward the divorce legislation and bringing forward some parts of the omnibus Criminal Code which had been brought forward by Mr. MacGuigan when he was Minister of Justice. The Minister spoke on a number of other subjects and I look forward to having them brought forward quickly. I would like to indicate that my menu will be a responsive one, not a list of things that we will be introducing. Being in the Opposition our role is to respond. I want to tell the Minister that we will not copy the practice of the former Opposition of opposing everything for the sake of opposing it.

Courts Amendment Act

[ Translation]

We would do what my leader ... The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said yesterday that we in the opposition are prepared to approve and help expedite any proposed legislation we can agree with, if it is good legislation. I can assure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) that he will have my full co-operation and that of my Party. I may say that the same policy will apply to the legislation before the House today. [English]

Bill C-3 is a small piece of the former legislation, Bill C-55. I do not know why the Minister has not addressed judicial salaries in this legislation. I do not know why he has left out some of the other pieces which were contained in Bill C-55. As he indicated, the judicial salary issue is a very important one on which he will have received representations, as I have, from the Canadian Bar Association. He will have read the report of a former Minister of Justice, Otto Lang, on that subject. If the Minister wants to bring matters forward even more quickly than he indicated, he will not find this Opposition, like the former Opposition, wanting to force the House into long periods of eventually meaningless debate before anything could get past the fabulous present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen).

I want to deal with one other subject on the Minister's menu, and that is his offer to provide the Attorneys General of the provinces with full consultation about the appointment of federal judges. I think that is a sensible policy. I know it was the purpose of the former Government and former Ministers of Justice always to consult with Attorneys General about appointments being made in the provinces, or to seek to do so. However, I do not think that should be a one-way street. Justice, in one aspect and in another, is a shared area of jurisdiction. The Attorneys General of the provinces have their responsibilities and the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Justice has his. I believe that if full consultation is to take place with the provincial governments with regard to federal appointments, there should also be consultation by the provincial governments with the federal Minister with regard to appointments which they propose to make within the system of justice.

I have discussed that with some provincial Attorneys General and found total unwillingness to have any form of consultation at all about the appointments within their areas of jurisdiction. Now we have a Government with the same political colour as the governments in most of the provinces of our country. Perhaps that will assist the present Minister in a proper kind of co-operative relationship. If consultation is to take place with the provinces on federal appointments, I do not see any reason why, in the public interest and in the interest of an effective system of justice, there should not be consultation by provincial Attorneys General about appointments within their responsibility with the federal Minister. In the interests of an effective federal system the Minister of Justice should be willing to encourage the provinces to come forward and to have that type of consultation.

November 8, 1984

Courts Amendment Act

Before turning briefly to the Bill I would also like to recognize the tremendous contribution to Canada of Mr. Justice Ritchie who, in this past week, has retired because of ill health nearly a year before the expiration of his term. He is a brilliant man from a very distinguished family who has done a tremendous job in that court. On behalf of my Party I also want to send him our good wishes that the decision he has made to withdraw from the heavy responsibility of being a Supreme Court judge will assist him in his recovery and that he will indeed enjoy many years of happy and productive retirement.

I had the good fortune to have Ken McFarlane as an excutive assistant for a few months. He is an individual who worked as Mr. Justice Ritchies' law clerk. I could see, from Ken's approach to the law, the type of integrity, vigour, discipline and endless hours of work that Mr. Justice Ritchie applied to the Public Service on the highest bench in our land. Again, I wish him a speedy recovery and many years of good health.

Starting with this Bill, as I have indicated, I want to begin the practice that I hope to be able to follow of not objecting just for the sake of objecting. One great reason to commend this Bill is that in respect of virtually all of its provisions it is identical to good Liberal legislation which was already on the Order Paper when the election was called.

I have nothing further to say about it except that I look forward to briefs being submitted before the committee by interested groups. I close as I began by wishing the Minister well but not too well in his term as Minister of Justice.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):

Mr. Speaker, 1 too commence my remarks today by congratulating the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) on his appointment to that very important portfolio. I think all Members of the House are aware of the unbridled enthusiasm with which he has approached that important responsibility so far. We will be looking with great interest at the initiatives he will be taking in the near future as outlined in the Speech from the Throne as well as in the remarks he has made today.

I was somewhat surprised that the Minister was able to be as expansive as he was on a Bill which I had initially regarded as being somewhat technical in nature. Of course, given the Minister's history, I suppose that is not particularly surprising.

Of course, I should also thank the Minister because he honoured my constituents and I with his presence in Burnaby on a number of occasions. In fact, prior to 1978 he came to Burnaby and was invited to support the local candidate. At that time I won very narrowly. In 1980 he was invited back twice. Following that, the majority doubled. I want to particularly thank the Minister on this occasion because in the last election it was decided that the heavy hitter would be brought in. When the heavy hitter, the present Minister of Justice, was brought in on several occasions to do battle with the forces of darkness in Burnaby, of course the majority tripled. Therefore

I want to extend a cordial invitation to the Minister of Justice to visit Burnaby on many, many occasions in the future in order that that trend might continue.

Mr. Crosbie:

They will come to their senses.

Mr. Robinson:

I also want to congratulate the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) on his appointment as spokesperson for the Liberal Party on justice. I certainly hope that the sensitivity to civil liberties which he displayed so clearly in his term as Solicitor General will continue in his new capacity as critic of the Ministry of Justice.

While I will not go on at great length with respect to this particular Bill, I believe that the Minister might want to enlighten us about subsection (3), subsection (a) and subsection (ii). We can wait for that enlightenment in due course.

I look forward to co-operating with the Government when it introduces good legislation on those rare occasions; and of course, on behalf of my caucus and joined by my caucus colleagues, to oppose vigorously legislation which is bad.

The Minister stated that there is an appointment forthcoming to the Supreme Court of Canada. I join with the Minister and the Hon. Member for York Centre in wishing Mr. Justice Ritchie well in the future. He has made an outstanding contribution to justice in this country. I urge the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to very seriously consider sending an early signal of the Government's recognition of the importance of the equality of women in this country by the appointment of a second woman to the Supreme Court of Canada. I certainly hope that the Minister and the Prime Minister will seriously consider the appointment of one of the outstanding women who are active in the judiciary and law in the Maritimes.

At the same time I believe we must seriously consider the method of appointment. We must look very seriously at ways of reforming the method of judicial appointment in this country, such as the possibility of involving Parliament. The Prime Minister has indicated on a number of occasions that he believes it is important that Parliament play a role in the nomination of important positions in our society, particularly at a time when the Charter of Rights involves some very significant, social and indeed economic questions. I believe it is appropriate that the mechanism for the appointment of judges be re-examined.

I note with interest that the old Liberal patronage and appointment of Crown agents appears to be alive and well. The Minister of Justice has already issued an early edict which states that the Liberals are to be disbanded and that he will be appointing his Tory cronies to take their place. It is interesting to note that a Government that has expressed its outcry about patronage is already placing its friends in those little plum positions right across the country.

There will be many opportunities in the course of this Parliament to speak at greater length about some of the important questions of legislation that the Minister has addressed, but I want to indicate at this time that we certainly

November 8, 1984

share the Minister's commitment to very fundamental change in the area of divorce law. We hope that this will be an early initiative. We will also look at the whole question of enforcement of maintenance orders.

In addition, the Criminal Code must be overhauled. There are many areas in which this change is long overdue. I certainly pledge my co-operation and that of my Party in moving toward progressive changes to the Criminal Code. The community has very serious concerns about other issues on which the Minister has indicated the Government will be taking action, such as the question of soliciting and pornography. I would caution the Minister to proceed with great care, particularly in the area of soliciting, because I believe we must be aware of the fact that a simplistic knee-jerk response by amending the Criminal Code and in many cases further victimizing women who are already victims would be a most unwise policy. We must look very carefully at the causes of prostitution, whether they be economic or social, while also recognizing the interest of the community in having a safe environment in which people are not harassed and in which women are not harassed by potential clients.

It is also important for the Government to examine and implement the important recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for changes to human rights legislation. These recommendations have sat idle for far too long. Year after year the Liberal Government refused to listen to the recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to expand protection of minorities in this country to include sexual orientation and political belief, for example, as prohibited grounds of discrimination. I hope this Government will be prepared to move where the previous Government stood silent.

Reference has also been made to the Badgley Commission. I was certainly disappointed to note the silence in the Speech from the Throne on the very important recommendations of that commission. The commission documented, in effect, a national crisis-the serious and widespread problem of sexual abuse of children. Although there was no reference to that question in the Speech from the Throne, I hope the Government would be prepared to move very early, for example, in establishing the office of Commissioner reporting directly to the Prime Minister, as was recommended by the Badgley Commission.

As well, we have seen evidence of another great inequity in our law. It was clearly documented in the courts of Toronto over the last few days and weeks. I am referring to the inequity in Canada's laws with respect to abortion. Certainly I believe it is essential to recognize that the evidence produced in the courtroom in Toronto, evidence indicating that many Canadian women are denied access to safe therapeutic abortions, particularly poor women and women in rural areas, cries out for response by this Parliament. We must not only look at a repeal of those provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with abortion and recognize that this is fundamentally a decision

Courts Amendment Act

which must be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor. At the same time we must look at far greater resources for prevention, resources in the areas of sex education, birth control and further research on safe and effective birth control methods.

Reference has been made to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I remind Hon. Members of the House that this Charter was fought by Members of the Tory caucus. It contains an override provision which can effectively nullify the most basic rights contained in that Charter. At the time that Section 15 on equality rights comes into effect, certainly we will be seeking the assurance of the Government that it will in fact bring all federal legislation, as well as other areas within federal jurisdiction, into conformity with those provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On the legislation before the House, certainly we support the Bill. I note that the enlightened administration in the Province of Manitoba is moving forward to consolidate the courts. I hope the Government will be prepared to take its future direction on the administration of justice from that government, which has certainly made a number of very progressive changes in the field of judicial reform and law reform.

We support this Bill. I certainly look forward to co-operating with the Government in areas where legislative change is overdue and to vigorously resisting the moves of the dinosaur wing in the Conservative Party which would take legislative change and law reform backward in the country.

Mr. Stackhouse:

Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member permit a question?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

There are no questions after the first three speakers today. However, it can be done by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed.

Mr. Stackhouse:

In view of there being in excess of 60,000 abortions per year, why does the Hon. Member think the present law provides an inadequate opportunity to the women of Canada seeking abortions?

Mr. Robinson:

Mr. Speaker, I invite the Hon. Member to review the evidence presented to the court in Toronto and to review the report of the Badgley Commission which contained very clear and eloquent evidence and documentation of the fact that access to safe therapeutic abortion is not a reality for thousands of Canadian women. I would be pleased to provide that material to the Hon. Member.

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in this debate until the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) mentioned dinosaurs. It happens that dinosaurs are in my riding. There are hundreds of them under the hills there. They are there because they were unable to adjust to changing conditions. I suggest that will be the same case with the New Democratic Party. It refuses to adjust to

November 8, 1984

Sports Pool Corporation

changing conditions. The Progressive Conservative Party is out to change things in the country.

I will always be on the side of the unborn child. I do not think anyone has the right to take the life of an unborn child or a born child.

Hear, hear!

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

Is the House ready for the question?

Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

Mr. Crosbie, seconded by Mr. Fraser, moves that Bill C-3, an Act to amend various Acts as a consequence of the reconstitution of the courts in Ontario and Manitoba, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Agreed.

Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved

that Bill C-2, an Act respecting the winding up of the Canada Sports Pool Corporation and Loto Canada Incorporated, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

He said: Mr. Speaker, first I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you in assuming the high office which you have taken on behalf of all of us in the House of Commons.

The legislation before us today marks the culmination of a four-year debate on whether the federal Government ought to have re-entered the lotteries field and the end to the very controversial Canada Sports Pool Corporation. After consideration of the debate, first on the proposal and then on the enactment of the federal sports pool lottery, we as a government have concluded that sole jurisdiction for lotteries must be restored to the provinces. It is for that reason the Bill is before us today.

As Hon. Members of the House will know, the purpose of this Bill is to wind up the previous government's Loto Canada and Canada Sports Pool Corporation, making good our Party's long-standing policy to keep the federal Government out of the lottery or gaming business.

On the surface of it, the Bill would appear to be very straightforward and uncontentious, compared with other legislative initiatives announced in the Speech from the Throne by Her Excellency the Governor General on Monday. This particular legislation may be viewed by some as a rather mundane

initiative, an initiative which may lead observers to ask why it has received such early and prompt attention by the new Government. I want to explain that today.

There are good reasons for the Government giving the Bill an early priority. First, by introducing the Bill we are making good on a long-standing belief that the federal Government has no business in the gaming and lottery field. Hence, by introducing this Bill early in the life of the new Parliament, we are demonstrating to the House and to Canadians that the Government is committed to keeping its word on long-standing policy positions and campaign commitments. If that is not patently obvious after hearing the Speech from the Throne, it will become obvious as the House begins to consider this and other pieces of legislation brought before it in the weeks and months ahead.

Second, and possibly more important than the first reason, is the fact that this Bill stands as a symbol. As all Hon. Members of the House will know, federal involvement in the lottery field has been and continues to be a major irritant in the area of federal-provincial relations. The manner of linking the sports pool proposal funding to the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary, the use of an Order in Council to alter the terms of legislation passed by this House and the enormous administrative problems of the corporation since it was formed have convinced us further that, quite apart from the issue of jurisdiction, the Canada Sports Pool Corporation must be brought to an end.

I want to say in terms of the negotiations with the provinces, reflecting specifically on the issue of the Calgary Olympics to be held in 1988-and I am sure all Members join with me in wishing the organizers, the City of Calgary, and the residents of Alberta well in the preparations for the Olympics-that my colleague the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) will be entering this debate later today to explain that position as well. Over the course of the previous government's life, countless measures of shared responsibility have been thrust on to the national agenda. In fact, it almost became one of the watchwords day by day in the House-that is, the difficulties, the controversies, or the confrontation that existed between the former government and the various provincial governments.

These measures have run the range from essentially housekeeping and administrative matters to those of split jurisdiction. That has gone all the way from minor legislation to the manner in which the patriation of our Constitution took place. While our recent history of federal-provincial negotiations has touched a wide range of unrelated issues, those negotiations have at the same time been characterized by one common denominator. That denominator we want to remove. Almost without exception these relationships have too often been acrimonious, confrontational and divisive. Through that process, Canadians have not been well served.

During the recent election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and all members of our Party made a com-

November 8, 1984

mitment to the people of Canada that, if elected, we would endeavour to embark upon a new era of federal-provincial relations. This new approach will be based on a solid foundation of trust, respect and understanding and will, of necessity, be born of the realization that our political system, its institutions, this very House of Commons, our geography, diversity and history, have all conspired to create a climate in which interdependence between the federal and provincial governments is a simple fact of our political life. Yet sadly, more often than not this fact has not been recognized.

In Monday's Speech from the Throne, repeated references were made to the Government's firm conviction that it is time to renew our relations with the provinces. It is time to reconcile long-standing differences. It is time to work together in a genuine atmosphere of co-operation, trust, and respect. It is time, quite simply, for a fresh start. This legislation, as I said earlier, became a symbol of that irritation between the provinces and the federal Government. That is why it has received such early priority from our Government.

That being the case and the reason for the legislation, let us turn to the specifics of this legislation which, if Members have read Bill C-2, they will see is very brief and straightforward. I would like to take a short look at the history of the sports pool and Loto Canada which, with the passage of this legislation, will become history.

As all Members are aware, the federal Government created Loto Canada for the purpose of raising money to help defray the cost of the 1976 Montreal Olympics. I remember as a new Member in 1972 that the first parliamentary committee I served on was the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. As a new Member, I did not know what miscellaneous estimates was all about. I found very quickly that the first piece of legislation put before us was the Loto Canada Bill. That was the coin legislation which allowed the Government to strike specific coins to help defray the cost of the Montreal Olympics.

At that time we had various representatives come before the committee. When we asked them how this legislation would help defray costs, we were always assured that there would be no overrun, that there would be no deficit. The then Mayor of the City of Montreal appeared before the committee and made the famous statement about certain abilities that he thought he would have. Of course, none of us has yet seen that happen. We will leave that also to the matter of history.

The point was made that the Loto Canada Bill should be put into place for a period of time and for a specific purpose. The period of time was to help defray the costs from Montreal. That was its specific purpose. It was not to be an opportunity for the federal Government suddenly to see a voluntary tax approach taken beyond the Olympic requirement or objective. History has proven since then that once the federal Government saw that it had an opportunity to get that kind of money, it wanted to stay in that field.

I recall debating with the then Postmaster General whether that was really the way to go. I asked whether we should not be straightforward with the Canadian people and say that the

Sports Pool Corporation

Olympic cause, the Olympic movement, the hosting of the Olympics, was important for all Canadians, whether it was in Montreal in 1976 or in Calgary in 1988, and tell Canadians "This is our cost. This is what we are going to put before the Canadian people. We are going to raise the money by a legitimate means because it is for a legitimate purpose, rather then go into the whole matter of lotteries". We know the history.

It was also said at that time that the Olympics would be self-financing. I will not go through that history. All of us are aware of it. What is important is that in 1979 my colleague who has been elevated to the position of joining you, Mr. Speaker, and others in the Chair, the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), had responsibilities in the Government for Loto Canada and he acted decisively with the intention of getting the federal Government out of the lottery field. He took the guideline of proper federal-provincial relations, met with the provinces and made a commitment on behalf of the Government. The commitment was straightforward: the federal Government would get out of the lottery field. The provinces, having exclusive operational rights within that field would in reciprocity give the federal Government for its purposes, primarily for fitness and amateur sport, a sum of money, then established at an amount of $25 million annualized, to be increased through a calculation based on the inflation rate. That money would come to the federal Government coffers for the specific purpose of fitness and amateur sport. The federal Government would be getting out of that field.

An agreement was signed. At that time it was $25 million per year. That figure is now in the order of approximately $35 million. We as a federal Government signed that agreement in good faith and the provinces signed that agreement in good faith.

After the 1980 election campaign, the then Leader of the Opposition pledged that he would restore the federal Government's power to conduct lotteries. I know that Liberals opposite have been saying throughout those four years that a bad deal had been struck. They might even be saying that today.