1988-07-28

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

[Stage Direction]
honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 49 petitions numbered as follows: 332-4746, 3324849, 332-4850, 332-4861 to 332-4863 inclusive, 332-4865, 332-4891 to 332-4894 inclusive, 332-4896 to 332-4898 inclusive, 332-4908, 332-4912 to 332-4919 inclusive, 3324921, 332-4929, 332-4930, 332-4934 to 332-4938 inclusive, 332-4957, 332-4959 to 332-4969 inclusive, 332-5036 to 3325048 inclusive, 332-5040, 332-5041, 332-5097 and 332-5099.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Speaker:: 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 without amendment Bill C-58, An Act to provide for the implementation of treaties for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Immigration Act, 1976; and Bill C-126, An Act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa

Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Claire L'Heureux-Dube, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 28th day of July, 1988, at 11.30 a.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Jean M. Sevigny Deputy Secretary, Operations.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
* *
*

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture relating to the $22 billion problem, options for the restructuring of farm debt.
In accordance with Standing Order 99(2), the committee will request a comprehensive response from the Government.
Very briefly, the report makes recommendations concerning the concept of equity financing and suggests that the Farm Credit Corporation have a dual role, carrying out government credit policy, being compensated for it, while at the same time having a commercial role to supply long-term farm mortgages.
Finally, the committee identified a need to stabilize the real agricultural costs of borrowed money and suggests some innovative measures such as interest stabilization plans and variable rate insured risk mortgages.
I would like to close by thanking members of the committee on all sides of the House for their efforts over the last number of months in arriving at a comprehensive report in which all Members on all sides of the House have been able to concur.


PETITIONS
Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the
[DOT] (U10)


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-123, an Act to amend the Indian Act (minors' funds and surviving spouse's preferential share), I have the honour to present the report of


Petitions
the legislative committee, in both official languages, with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to the House today a petition signed by residents of Scarborough, Newmarket, Don Mills, and Thornhill which states that the Rouge River Valley in Scarborough is a unique and precious natural area, and that protecting the endangered wildlife and wilderness areas in the Rouge Valley is in the national interest. They join with the Scarborough City Council, the federal Environment Minister (Mr. McMillan), Save the Rouge Valley System and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations and call on the Government to work with the provincial Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as a Canadian heritage park or a provincial park.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two petitions to present on behalf of a number of constituents. In one petition, which has been certified as correct under Standing Order 106, the petitioners state that they feel that the fabric of Canadian sovereignty has been threatened by the Canada-U.S. trade deal. They believe that the trade deal will integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base. Therefore, they call for a general election on this issue.
I have another petition which is completely different. It is from constituents from western Canada. They, too, believe that the federal Government lacks a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States. They believe that the trade deal as negotiated would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine Canada's ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
I could go on and on. It points out all kinds of problems which they perceive attached to this trade deal.
Basically, they are calling upon Parliament to dissolve now to allow the people of Canada an opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty, honour and privilege to present a petition from almost 100 residents of Port Alberni, British Columbia, who call upon Parliament to pass into law legislation that will
protect the life of the unborn child from conception and at all stages of development with the exception of the extremely rare situation in which an abortion is performed in order to save the life of the mother.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 27 men and women of Etobicoke-Lakeshore I am presenting a petition that has been certified correct both as to form and as to content pursuant to Standing Order 106.
The petition calls upon Parliament to pass a law to protect the life, liberty and security of the unborn at every stage of its development.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions signed by residents of Winnipeg who say that the trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control effectively foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, or equalize opportunities between regions.
Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by residents of Blenheim, Ridgetown, Morpeth, Chatham and Highgate who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts related to schizophrenia will, in the future, be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness in Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 360 will be answered today.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	In (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988 to date, how many members of the Canadian Armed Forces have been released under Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 19/20?
2.	Is there a new policy in place to replace CFAO 19/20 and, if so, what is
it?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
Number of members released from the Canadian Forces by virtue of the application of CFAO 19-20.
Year	Homosexual	Sexual Deviation	Total1984	38	9	471985	19	13	321986	12	15	271987	9	12	211988	5	4	983	53	136
2. (a) No. (b) The application of CFAO 19-20 was modified on February 11, 1987 following statement of the Minister of National Defence before the Standing Committee on Human Rights on the matter of sexual orientation as it affects the Canadian Forces. The modifications involved removal of the obligation on the part of members of the Canadian Forces to report suspected homosexuals to Canadian Forces authorities and a change with respect to the basis for ineligibility to serve from "propensity" to "acts". Current policy has been further modified in that the involuntary release, under Item 5(d) of QR&O Chap 15, of serving members actually engaged in the practice of homosexual activities has been suspended pending government consideration of the Canadian Force policy.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 372 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 372 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Langdon: Since September, 1984, have any government departments or agencies awarded grants or loans to individuals, corporations, or non-governmental organizations located in the constituency of Essex-Windsor, and, if so, in each case (a) to which ones (b) in what amounts (c) for what purposes?
Return tabled.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Abortion


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, July 27, the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Supreme Court of Canada having declared that the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to abortion are inconsistent with the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are therefore of no force or effect, the government should prepare and introduce legislation, consistent with the Constitution of Canada, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reflects the fundamental value and inherent dignity of each human being and the inherent worth of human life, and which achieves a balance between the right of a woman to liberty and security of her person and the responsibility of society to protect the unborn; and
Such legislation should prohibit the performance of an abortion, subject to the following exceptions:
When, during the earlier stages of pregnancy: a qualified medical practitioner is of the opinion that the continuation of the pregnancy of a woman would, or would be likely to, threaten her physical or mental wellbeing; when the woman in consultation with a qualified medical practitioner decides to terminate her pregnancy; and when the termination is performed by a qualified medical practitioner; and
When, during the subsequent stages of pregnancy: the termination of the pregnancy satisfies further conditions, including a condition that after a certain point in time, the termination would only be permitted where, in the opinion of two qualified medical practitioners, the continuation of the pregnancy would, or would be likely to, endanger the woman's life or seriously endanger her health.
Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House before giving my ruling that, in order to assist Hon. Members, a copy of the ruling is now being taken to each desk by the Pages.
I should say that-and perhaps this is a good time to say it in order to relieve any anxieties that Hon. Members may have with respect to the procedure-when the hour of deliberation commences, all Members are then invited, if they feel that there is anything within the ruling that they want clarified, to avail themselves of the services of the Table Officers.
I shall now commence to read the ruling.
Pursuant to the special order of the House adopted on July 26, 1988 it is my duty now to provide the House with my ruling in relation to the proposed amendments to the motion of the Flon. Minister of State (Treasury Board) (Mr. Lewis) on the subject of abortion.

I will begin by dealing with the proposed amendments which I feel are out of order and cannot therefore be put to the House.


Abortion

Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) seeks to amend the main motion by introducing the concepts of both the stress and anxiety which may accompany an unexpected pregnancy and also economic considerations. It is my view that such concepts are raising new propositions which were not contemplated in the main motion. I would refer Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 437(2). I therefore must rule Motion No. 5 out of order.

Motion No. 15 in the name of the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Hardey) is virtually identical to Motion No. 5 and is also out of order for the same reasons.

Motion No. 6 in the name of the Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Hicks) refers to the possible psychological consequences of obtaining an abortion,the support services available to mothers and the possibilities of adoption. This motion attempts to introduce new concepts into the main motion and is therefore also out of order pursuant to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 437(2).

Motion No. 18 in the name of the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) is similar to Motion No. 6 and also deals with psychological consequences and counselling and is out of order for the same reasons as Motion No. 6.

Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) also attempts to introduce new concepts into the motion in that it specifies giving preeminence to the protection of all life and recognizing that the foetus is a human being. This was not envisaged in the main motion. Therefore, for the same reasons as those given for Motions Nos. 5 and 6, Motion No. 9 would also be out of order.
Motion No. 7 in the name of the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankough-net) and Motion No. 8 in the name of the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) would introduce into the main motion a contradiction in giving pre-eminence to the life of the foetus, which would be inconsistent with the thrust of the main question. They would both therefore be out of order and I would refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, Citation 203(5).
Motion No. 17 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) and Motion No. 19 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) are virtually identical to Motion No. 8 and are ruled out of order for the same reasons.
Motion No. 11, in the name of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), would introduce a new concept into the main motion by attempting to ensure equality of access throughout the country and through reference to the Canada Health Act. Pursuant to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 437, this amendment is out of order.
Motion No. 14, in the name of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), attempts to amend the Criminal Code and is therefore out of order. Also Motion No. 16, in the name of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), attempts to add to the motion a new proposition not envisaged in the main motion and is therefore out of order. I again refer Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 437.
Motion No. 21, in the name of the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford), in making reference to programs which would foster better knowledge and understanding, is attempting to introduce concepts foreign to the original proposition and, pursuant to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 437(1), this motion is out of order.
In resume then, Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21 are ruled out of order.

Some of the motions which were submitted are virtually identical to other motions and will not be selected to be put to the House for a vote for that reason. In cases of duplication, the motion submitted first will be the one selected to be put to the House while those submitted later will not be selected.

grouping and voting (consistent with Part (8) of this Order) to be made to the House when the debate is first resumed ...

Ruling on the acceptability of certain of the motions is obviously relevant to the practice of report stage motions relating to Bills.

The selection of motions was therefore made first on the basis of procedural acceptability and, second, they were given priority of selection against other substantially similar motions on the basis of the chronology in which they were received or submitted to the Table. That is also in keeping with the practice of how motions at the report stage are given priority for submission to the House. The voting pattern that I will now list is also strictly in keeping with that same practice and will reflect the chronological order in which the motions were submitted.
Accordingly, the voting procedure on Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10 and 13 will be as follows:
(a) Motion No. 1, in the name of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins), will be put first and voted on by the House.
If the decision is affirmative, Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 13 will consequently not be put to the House for a vote, since they attempt to amend the same part of the main motion. But Motion No. 10, in the name of the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow), which affects part of the main motion not touched by the adoption of Motion No. 1, will then be put to the House for a vote.
If the decision on Motion No. 1 is negative, Motion No. 2, in the name of the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James), will be put next and voted on by the House.

b) If the decision on Motion No 2 is affirmative, Motion Nos 3, 10 and 13 will consequently not be put to the House for a vote.
If the decision on Motion No 2 is negative, Motion No 3, in the name of the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), will then be put and voted on by the House.

(c)	If the decision on Motion No. 3 is affirmative, Motions Nos. 10 and 13 will consequently not be put to the House for a vote.
If the decision on Motion No. 3 is negative, Motion No. 10, in the name of the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow), will then be put and voted on by the House.
(d)	If the decision on Motion No. 10 is affirmative, Motion No. 13, in the name of the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), will consequently not be put to the House for a vote.
Abortion
If the decision on Motion No. 10 is negative, Motion No. 13 will then be put and voted on by the House.

e) Finally, the main motion, will be put and voted on by the House either in its original from or amended as the case may be.

I think that it might be appropriate for the Chair to just remark that the Chair has been extremely conscious of a variety of views in the Chamber, and it is the hope of the Chair that the procedure set out in this ruling will, as much as is possible, give Hon. Members a chance to reflect those views in a vote. I know that there has been a sentiment among some Members to proceed in a somewhat different way, whereby we would be voting on each of the motions, no matter what the result of that vote will be. I do want to say that even up to early this morning I have given that further thought than I had over the last number of weeks. I have to say to those Hon. Members that it did not seem appropriate to the Chair to proceed in that way. It would be extremely difficult to justify procedurally, especially in view of the fact that the Chair is bound by the resolution establishing this procedure, and I am in that resolution bound to adhere as closely as I can to the practice at report stage of a Bill.
I thank Hon. Members for their co-operation.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I think I am speaking for all Members of the House, I want to thank you and the Table Officers for the time and effort that has been put into the ruling. I appreciate that it is not one where there is a lot of precedent to fall back on, but I believe, Sir, we have been well served by the debate and well served by your efforts in this ruling.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I want to endorse what the Minister said, but I would also like to say a few words of thanks to the staff of the House, to all those who gave us their support and who worked so hard to help Members during the past few days, and we hope they will be able to have a vacation during the next few days and get some well-earned rest.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I too want to add my voice to that of the Deputy House Leader regarding your decision. On everyone's behalf may I say that the decision to circulate your ruling in writing and to lay out in precis form how we will proceed is most useful to all Members and will help guide us as we each make up our own decisions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Royal Assent


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that whether a motion has been declared in order or out of order is based on the resolution on the Order Paper. I feel, and many others felt, that the resolution was very faulty in places and not accurate. Since Motion No. 14, the motion that I presented, ultimately does what we have to do, namely, amends the Criminal Code, why would it be out of order in this consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has, as the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) knows, a most profound regard for the many years of service of the Hon. Member in this place and for his experience. I do not take the Hon. Member's intervention lightly except to say this, and I must say it. It is not always easy to take the number of motions as there were in this case and put them in what had to be as much as possible a cohesive series of votes that would as much as possible again reflect the thinking in this Chamber.
The Hon. Member's motion, in the view of the Chair, and I regret this, is not acceptable procedurally. It may well be that the resolution itself to which the Hon. Member has referred is not as wide or not as flexible as some Members would have wished. I know the Hon. Member knows that the Chair has to take what is brought to me by the House.
I hope the Hon. Member will be able to bear with me, and I hope he will feel, in the other votes available to him, that he will be in a position to express his views.
1 think momentarily we will be going to the other place, but I want to reiterate something. The one hour will run after we come back to the Chamber unless there is dissent, and I do not hear any. Again I reiterate that the services of the Table Officers are here at Members' disposal. I urge Hon. Members, if there is some confusion, to consult them.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we are content to have the hour start to run from now and that the Royal Assent take place within that time, if it is the wish of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the wish of the House, that is certainly acceptable. My only concern was to make sure that, because we go to the other place there should be no sense in this Chamber that Hon. Members are losing the full hour of consideration.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may 1 just say that in the adopted procedure there was a provision for Royal Assent. I take it we can now proceed with the hour as per the agreement and come back here at 12.30 p.m. or thereabouts to vote.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the exchange. There is agreement.