1988-07-26

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petition Nos. 332-4794 and 332-5020 to 332-5027 inclusive.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixty-seventh report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House today petitions from Duncan, Mill Bay, Cobble Hill and Shawinigan Lake, British Columbia, signed by over 680 people who petition Parliament
to prepare legislation immediately to the effect that all human beings from the moment of fertilization until natural death be protected in the Charter of Rights, with the only exception being where medical procedures are necessary to prevent the death of the mother.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present a petition from the residents of Scarborough, who join thousands of others working to protect the Rouge Valley in Scarborough as a unique and precious natural area.
Protecting the endangered wildlife and wilderness areas in this Rouge Valley is ili the national interest, so we join with the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), Save the Rouge Valley System, and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations in expressing support for saving the valley, and call on the Government to work with the Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as a Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.


Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition from my constituents and from other residents of Canada, who humbly pray and beseech Parliament to pass legislation giving full protection to the human foetus, from conception to birth, to take the necessary measures for this law to be respected and for adequate services to be put in place to come to the assistance of pregnant women in difficulty.
There are 10,000 names on the petition I am presenting.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table another petition from Canadians regarding the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement.
The signatories to this petition say that the Mulroney Government has sold Canada without getting anything in return; that Canadian industries are still not protected from American trade laws; that the United States has got everything it wanted in the important sectors, particularly agriculture, energy, trade, the automobile industry, financial services, investments; that thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened; and that the Conservative Government has not provided for any assistance to help Canadian workers adapt.

July 26, 1988
Questions on the Order Paper
For these reasons, the petitioners humbly pray Parliament to censure the government for having signed the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all the questions stand over.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Bill McKnight (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: the second reading of, and concurrence in, the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-105, an Act to ensure the safe operation of railways and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-l 12, an Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are two motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-l 12, an Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, both standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are admissible and will be debated and voted on separately.
I shall now put Motion No. 1 to the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Member is not here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will proceed to Motion No. 2. I will listen to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on a point of order.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, if the House would give its consent I would gladly move Motion No. 2 in the place of the Hon. Member who proposed this motion to the House. However, I could not do so with Motion No. 1. That is why I did not rise to suggest it at that point. Perhaps one of his colleagues could move the motion for him.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (for Mr. Hovdebo) moved:: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-l 12 be amended in Clause 35 by striking out lines 38 to 40 at
page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"35.(1) Section 2 shall come into force January 1, 1990.
(2)	Section 4 shall come into force January 1, 1990.
(3)	All other provisions of this Act shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council."


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion introduced by the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) for the Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).
The purpose of Motion No. 2 proposed by the Member for Prince Albert is to ensure that Clause 2 and Clause 4 of the Bill do not come into force at the present time but that the application of those two clauses be delayed until January 1, 1990.
The House may ask why the Hon. Member for Prince Albert would want these two clauses of the Bill to come into force on January 1, 1990. I know the Hon. Member would want me to respond. Clause 2 of the Bill states:
There shall be a Commission to be known as the Canadian Grain Commission consisting of three commissioners to be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office, during good behaviour, for a renewable term of up to seven years.
The old section in the Act states that there shall be a commission to be known as the Canadian Grain Commission consisting of three commissioners to be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office during pleasure. Notice the difference. Why does the Government want a seven-year term of office for members of the Canadian Grain Commission? The Hon. Member for Prince Albert quite ably pointed out why. My distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), during the debate on second reading and during committee proceedings also very eloquently pointed out that what the Government wanted to do in this case was to provide a sinecure, as in patronage, for one of its members to sit on the Canadian Grain Commission.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative administration made a number of promises to the Canadian people. You will remember that the Conservatives told the people of Canada that patronage was wrong and that the preceding Government, which had appointed 19 people prior to the last election to various boards, agencies and the Senate- all positions which existed, mind you-was wrong. Upon
July 26, 1988

coming into office the Conservatives went whole hog at patronage, and I use the words "whole hog" quite appropriately, I think. They fired people who had sat on various boards and agencies. They fired members of the Canadian Grain Commission, another agency of the Government.
I say to the Hon. Member opposite to pay attention because some day he may be one of those appointees, if the Government does not get defeated first. I say to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Western Economic Diversification (Mr. McKnight), who seems to be taking notes of my remarks, that what the Conservatives did after they came to power, firing people as they did, taking away the livelihoods of these people, was for the mere purpose of replacing them with their Tory friends.
The Government in its wisdom, and I use the word loosely, has now decided that if it appoints a Conservative Member of Parliament to sit on the Canadian Grain Commission, the Liberals, when they are in power-which will be whenever the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has the nerve, I will not use the words "intestinal fortitude", to call the election-may choose to fire that particular former Member of Parliament for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) from the Canadian Grain Commission. In order to avoid that, the Government has proposed a Bill which would have the effect of ensuring that the Member for Lisgar, in his incarnation as a member of the Canadian Grain Commission, will not be fired. In other words the Government wants to provide a sinecure for the Member for Lisgar.
All these Tories opposite might think I am cooking this up because they are far too partisan, but I know, Mr. Speaker, you would not believe that this is something I have cooked up. However,but let me read from an article in The Toronto Star of July 5, 1988. It is a very reliable source. It is a Canadian Press release and you can always believe the Canadian Press. It reads:
Progressive Conservative MP Jack Murta, a former cabinet minister, will give up his House of Commons seat and accept a position with the Canadian Grain Commission, a newspaper says. Sources told the Winnipeg Free Press that the Manitoba MP will be appointed a commissioner with the federal grain-regulating agency, at a salary of $70,000 to $80,000 a year, within five weeks.
What is happening here is that the Government wants to appoint this Member of Parliament to that job. The Member of Parliament wants the job, but he feels it is too risky to accept because he could be turfed out later. Therefore, the Government in turn is trying to provide that protection for the Member of Parliament. I am not suggesting that the Liberal Government, when it is elected very shortly, will turf out the Member for Lisgar.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: I see I woke up a few Tories. That makes it all worthwhile. I am not saying the Liberals will turf this person out. But the rules are there, that people who sit on those commissions are deemed to be appropriate. If the Conservative
Canada Grain Act
Leader thought it was appropriate to fire everyone just because they did not happen to be Tories, why should Parliament now give the Conservative administration any special powers to protect a Member of Parliament of its own persuasion?
There is an article in the Manitoba Co-operater of February 18, 1988, by Sprinkler Sam. He writes:
Hear ye, hear yea. The bed is being feathered for one Tory MP Jack Murta even as we speak. We have finally uncovered the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, on how Murta will become chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission. (Have I ever lied to you before?).
But follow carefully, for Murta's path has more curves and dips than the slalom ski run at Calgary this week.
Apparently Charlie Mayer and Murta have agreed for some time that no one was better qualified than the Lisgar MP to head the grain commission. But there was one obstacle.
CGC commissioners are employed "at the pleasure" of the reigning government. In other words, a new government could turf Murta out as fast as you can say Beth Candlish. Checking the polls, Murta told Mayer, uh-uh.
On the other hand, Canadian Wheat Board commissioners are appointed to terms based on "good behaviour." That is, the government must show just cause in order to fire them. It makes a big difference.
So? So in the House of Commons last week Mayer introduced amendments to the Canada Grain Act. Oh, nothing major. Just a bit of tidying up, we're told. A few odds and ends. Except for one amendment that will make CGC commissioner posts fixed seven-year terms based on "good behaviour".
Murta goes to the commission, Klassen over to the wheat board, and both are safe if the Tories lose the next election. You're welcome.
Now you will understand, Mr. Speaker, why the Hon. Member for Prince Albert moved his amendment. It is a very good amendment, and I suggest to all Conservative Members of this House who may have made speeches on patronage during the last election campaign, that now is the time to put their money where their mouths were.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for just a moment on Motion No. 2 which proposes to amend Bill C-112, which is an amendment to the Canada Grain Act. The proposed Bill would give the Government the ability to appoint up to six persons known as assistant commissioners to hold office during good behaviour with a renewable term of up to five years. In other words, an appointment is good for 10 years, one five-year term and a renewable five years. The old Act, I think, was quite adequate. It dealt with the phrase "for good behaviour" and also mentioned "at the pleasure of the Minister". The Canadian Wheat Board is appointed at the pleasure of the Minister as is the Canadian Grain Commission, and this will be the case until this Bill comes into effect.
The reasons for this amendment were made quite clear by my Liberal colleague from those three points southeast of Ottawa. He correctly pointed out the suspicions running throughout the western grain community that this particular amendment is designed to keep the retiring Member of Parliament for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) in an appointed position long enough to live out his working career and retire. That was not the original intention of the Canadian Grain Commission.

July 26, 1988
Canada Grain Act
The original intention of the Canadian Grain Commission was to find the best people with the best backgrounds in the grains business.
I do not have any strong objection to the background of the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) to fill the position. However, I think that it is not necessary to make it a sinecure, which is the effect of this particular amendment.
There have been a few political appointees to the Canadian Grain Commission before. Generally, they were defeated candidates appointed by previous Liberal Governments and by previous Conservative Governments. It has become a sort of Senate of the western Canadian grains industry. Yet, for the most part, those appointees have been people with adequate background to do a good job of serving on the commission. There was no need prior to now, and I think there is no need now, to make those sinecures unassailable for at least five years and, upon good behaviour, a reappointment for a further five years.
George Leith was a former Member of the Legislature in Saskatchewan under the Thatcher Liberals. I believe he was a cabinet Minister for a brief time. He served honourably and well on the Canadian Grain Commission.
Years ago Forrest Hetland, who is now a member of the Canadian Wheat Board, served on the Grain Commission. He was considered to be something of a political appointee although I do not believe that he ever sought office. It was his father who had served as a Member of Parliament.
The tendency of Governments has been to appoint supporters to the commission. The recent appointment which went in reverse was a Diefenbaker appointment. I refer to the former Member of Parliament for Swift Current-Maple Creek, Mr. Frank Hamilton, who was a defeated candidate and who got his appointment that way. He then came back into politics and served as a Member of this House until his retirement at the end of the 1984 Session of Parliament.
The tradition of political appointees is not what we are opposed to in this particular motion, although I cannot particularly condone it, as long as the appointees are people who know the business. However, I think it is going a little too far when one ties the hands of all future Governments and future Ministers to the tradition of making those appointments at the pleasure of the Minister. To my recollection there has not been a practice by Ministers of the Crown to dispose of these appointees to the Grain Commission immediately upon taking office. Their appointments, if they are competent people, are relatively secure. I see no need for this particular amendment that the Government has put into these amendments to the Canadian Grain Act which would permit its appointees to hold the office during good behaviour, for at least five years.
I support the motion moved by my friend from Prince Albert which would delay the coming into force of this particular amendment until January 1, 1990, which is just beyond the longest possible mandate that this Government can have. Since we have been unable to have the clause deleted entirely, that would be the second choice.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I wish to oppose the motion that has been brought forward by the Hon. Member. I do so as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture which, over the past several weeks, has studied these proposals in detail and made recommendations to the House.
The essence of the Canada Grain Act is that we have a set of commissioners whose responsibility it is to ensure the integrity of the grading system and the sampling system in Canada, and to ensure that Canada's reputation as a supplier of quality wheat and quality grains to the rest of the world remains intact.
A number of responsible farm organizations in the western Prairies have suggested to me, and I am sure to other members of the committee, that the best way to ensure the integrity of the grain commissioners is to give them a modest term of, say, seven years, in order that they have some security of tenure. In this way if they will be going to the expense of moving their families and setting up house in Winnipeg they can be reasonably assured that the job would endure for that length of time. Therefore they would be more independent and not subject to the whims of, perhaps, a particular Deputy Minister, or to a particular political pressure of the day. They would in fact have the independence required of such a responsible position in order to carry out the thrust of the Act which, after all, is to maintain the quality and integrity of Canada's grains and its reputation in the world market.
I cannot let the words of the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) pass unchallenged. Only a Liberal could stand in this House and make the sort of ridiculous representations that he made. Only a Liberal would have the nerve to do it. The last time there were any substantive amendments to the Canada Grain Act was in 1971 when the then Liberal Government changed the Act. At that time and prior to it commissioners were appointed for a 10-year term which, in fact, may be too long. I believe that a period of five to seven years is probably about right. But the fact is that the commissioners were appointed for 10-year terms and the Liberal Government of the day brought forward legislation to eliminate that 10-year term and change it to "at the pleasure" for the specific reason of getting rid of Frank Hamilton, to whom the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) referred.
Mr. Hamilton was an expert in the grains field. He belonged to the commission for some eight years and was summarily dismissed by the Liberal Government as a result of its having played politics with the legislation and overturning it. I think that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and
July 26, 1988

Members of his Party have a lot of nerve to stand in this House and talk in terms of political manipulation of this Bill.
I simply want to say that I can think of no better guarantee to ensure the independence of the members of the commission than to give them a reasonable term of office. I think the suggestion of seven years is a reasonable and adequate one, one which I believe is supported in the main by responsible farm organizations and producers on the Prairies.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the two motions briefly. First, Motion No. 1, which has been moved by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on behalf of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) is opposed to requests on the part of the commission that it be enabled or be given the authority to delegate certain responsibilities. During the course of the committee hearings the relevant authorities made it very clear-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to say that Motion No. 1 was not put because there was no one in the House to put it. We are on Motion No. 2.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I misunderstood, Mr. Speaker. I thought that it had been put by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt on his entry into the House.
With respect to Motion No. 2, I would like to echo the comments made by the Chairman of the committee, the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson). I wish to point out that what the industry is seeking in its recommendations is that a length of term be established for grain commissioners, as has already been suggested, to secure some continuity. The Grain Commission is largely responsible for Canada's reputation which the Canadian wheat industry has achieved throughout the world. In times of difficult markets we have always been able to sell. The quality of our grain and reliability has never been in question. That is largely due to the work of the Canadian Grain Commission and those who represent the Government of Canada in that regard.
Many regulatory bodies are staffed by individuals who have a specific term, whether it be five or 10 years. What is suggested here is a compromise position that individual grain commissioners be put in position for a specific term of seven years, and assistant grain commissioners for a slightly lesser term. As has already been suggested to the House, we are anxious that people of quality be appointed. We are also anxious that people be protected in their appointments to the extent that it makes it worth-while for them to relocate to Winnipeg from Saskatchewan or Alberta. For example, with respect to assistant grain commissioners, one of the decisions made in recent months was that a position should be moved from Winnipeg to Brandon. People who accept such positions
Canada Grain Act
need to know that they will be there for a reasonable period of time if they are to accept that type of responsibility.
The suggestion that there should be a specific term is an appropriate one. It is consistent with other types of regulatory appointments that the House has made in the past. It should be stressed and sought by all Members that some assurance be given that those who are appointed to those important positions be well qualified individuals who are prepared to act on behalf of the industry, and indirectly on behalf of the Government of Canada. Since the Government came into office in 1984 it has built into the system a provision that such individuals can be called before a committee of Parliament to be questioned, if anyone should have any reservations whatsoever about the quality, qualifications or integrity of the individuals who are appointed.
In my opinion this amendment will strengthen the Grain Commission. It will encourage people with the appropriate qualifications to accept appointments if they are offered in the future. Quite frankly, it is in the long-term benefit of the industry, and that is why I hope at this stage the House will reject Motion No. 2.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on Motion No. 2. 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Hovdebo) negatived.


Hon. Frank Oberle (for the Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)) moved: 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.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

July 26, 1988
Western Grain Stabilization Act WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are two motions in amendment on the Order Paper and Notices for report stage of Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are acceptable and will be debated and voted on separately. I shall now put Motion No. 1 to the House.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-132 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out line 14 at page 20
and substituting the following therefor:
"man and four other members to be".
He said: I proposed this amendment, the effect of which is to provide an executive committee of a chairman and four members instead of an executive committee of seven members, to make it simpler to operate.
Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain briefly to the House why the Government prefers that the Motion No. 1 not be approved, and why the Government proposes that there be full and regional representation. The Government proposes that there should be eight members in total on the committee rather than five, as the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) on behalf of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) would provide for.
We are seeking the opportunity to ensure that there be as full a regional representation as possible on this advisory committee. The opportunity to have eight members instead of five would enable us to add one additional member from each of the three prairie and grain producing provinces.
Therefore, we hope that the House would give us the authority to enlarge the committee because we believe that greater representation on the part of the industry is in the interests of the industry. The more opportunity we provide the industry itself to be directly represented the better it will be for the industry as a whole.


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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Hovdebo) negatived.
Hon. Frank Oberle (for the Minister of State (Grains and
Oilseeds)) moved:
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-132 be amended in Clause 26 by adding immediately after line
16 at page 22 the following:
"(7) The provisions of the said Act enacted by this Act, other than those in respect of which subsections (1) to (5) apply, shall be deemed to have come into force on July 31, 1988 and, for greater certainty, the following provisions of the said Act shall apply in respect of the crop year ending on that date, namely:
(a)	the amendments to subsection 2(1) of the said Act, set out in
subsections 1(1) to (3);
(b)	subsections 4(2) to (4) of the said Act, as enacted by section 2;
(c)	the amendments to paragraphs 8(4)(a) to (c) and subsections 8(5) and
(6) of the said Act, as enacted by section 3;
(d)	the amendments to paragraphs 10(1 )(b) and (1.1 )(b) and subsection
10(2) of the said Act, as enacted by section 4; and
(e)	section 12 of the said Act, as enacted by section 5."


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to explain why Motion No. 2 has been introduced at this particular point. The difficulty that has arisen is that Bill C-132 may not be enacted into legislation as early as we had anticipated. This amendment would ensure that once Bill C-132 is proclaimed, it will take effect as of July 31, 1988, and shall be deemed to have come into force on that date. Therefore, it shall apply retroactively to the entire 1987-88 crop year.
During the committee stage of the Bill it appeared that there was a reasonable possibility that the Bill would not be proclaimed until sometime in August, assuming passage through the House and the other place. The purpose of this amendment is to make it very clear that the Bill shall be deemed to have come into effect on July 31, which is the last day of the crop year, and it shall apply retroactively to the entire 1987-88 crop year.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have no negative reaction to this particular proposal. I regret that the Government had worded it in that manner to begin with.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?
July 26, 1988


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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Mayer) agreed to.


Frank Oberle: 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.


[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.


Frank Oberle: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to indicate my Party's support for the technical amendments provided for in Bill C-132. We know, of course, that the Bill provides for the writedown of some $750 million of the Western Grain Stabilization Fund under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. We know that the provisions of the Bill are to permit and encourage farmers to participate in stabilization and that this would be enhanced if the Bill were passed by July 31. Our Party indicated its usual full co-operation with the Government in assisting the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary by consenting to immediate third reading debate rather than the customary wait of one day that was imposed. We were glad to participate and to accommodate the Government in that way. We want farmers to be able to participate this year, and that will be possible with the passage of this Bill now.
I just wanted to state as well that we welcome the fact that the Government has this commitment to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. We know that that commitment to the Act
Western Grain Stabilization Act
was not always there on the part of Conservative Members. We remember the fine work that was done in that area by the then Minister, Otto Lang. I want to reiterate the good wishes to Mr. Lang for his fine work and, of course, to the excellent Parliamentary Secretary that he had at the time, Ralph Goodale. Ralph will very shortly be the Premier of the Province of Saskatchewan. We wish him well. I know that all Hon. Members, particularly the Conservative Members who are now such fans of stabilization, will want to pay homage as well to Ralph Goodale. I thought that I would mention that to ensure that all Members of Parliament were aware of the excellent work done in that regard.

So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, on behalf of my colleague the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), on behalf of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Gary (Mr. Axworthy), I would like to express our consent to this government measure. We are happy to see that the Conservative Government has finally come round to favouring western grain stabilization. This hasn't always been a Conservative policy, as you know, because at a certain moment the extreme right of the Conservative Party had some difficulties with the idea of a stabilization program. It was seen by yesterday's Tories-I say "yesterday's", but some of yesterday's Tories are still with us today, and we call them the dinosaurs-it was seen by yesterday's Tories as some kind of socialist measure. That is not the case. We know this system is good for the agriculture sector, and we also know that governments intervene in agriculture in almost every country in the whole world.

So we know that there is government intervention in agriculture in most countries of the world, and that the Government has a moral duty to assist Canadian agriculture.
The stabilization program is an example of a system which can benefit farmers during particularly bad years-such as the one that the grain sector is going through right now-bad years that are caused in large measure by the war of subsidies between the United States of America and the European Economic Community. Canada is standing in the middle of this war of subsidies and money and is being bombarded on both sides. Our farmers have had a very low return for their crops.
It is interesting to note that the United States-and I have said this previously-chose to adopt the U.S. Farm Bill, the United States Food Security Act 1985, at the same time as it was going through this trade deal between our two countries. In other words, they were negotiating to end subsidies, to end all kinds of trade-distorting measures between the two countries, yet at the same time the Government of the United States was imposing what is by far the most offensive piece of legislation that it could have ever aimed at Canadian agriculture. I suppose it was not directly aimed at Canadian agriculture; it was aimed at European agriculture. When you are

July 26, 1988
Western Grain Stabilization Act
standing in the Crossfire, it is very small comfort to know that when you are shot, it is really someone else that they wanted to shoot, but you are still shot. That is in fact what happened to Canadian agriculture. It has received a severe blow from those subsidy wars. I hope that a solution is found to that in the near future so that Canadian farmers, particularly grain farmers, can start receiving income which is more reasonable than what they have been subjected to over recent years, particularly, I might add, last year.
This year there have been other problems, with the drought and everything else. All those situations combined have caused many Canadians to pause and to reflect on the necessity of supporting our agriculture.
I received a number of interesting phone calls, some from my constituents right here in eastern Canada. They contacted me a few weeks ago and asked the following: "We see our brothers and sisters in western Canada affected by this drought. What can we do to help as easterners?" I thought that was fascinating. It demonstrated an element of goodwill from constituents and from citizens outside my constituency but nevertheless around the general area that I represent in the House of Commons, and I was glad to see that kind of a reaction.
I indicated to them the plans that the Government had and the fact that opposition Members in the House were encouraging the Government to go even further in assisting our agricultural sector and that we would continue to do that and, as Members of the House, we would give every assistance to the Government to ensure that help was forthcoming to that sector of Canadian life, mainly western Canadian agriculture. I was glad, and I thought that I would take a moment to express that, in order to see the reaction of some of the people that I represent. I think that it is a very healthy sign when we see our citizens paying for a long-distance phone call to contact Members of Parliament to express their wish to help fellow citizens who live 2,000 or 3,000 miles away from them. That, for me, was very heart-warming. It is far better to see that than some of the divisions which we have experienced from time to time in Canada.
That being said, I want to give my support to this Bill and hope that the House will pass it very shortly. I think that after we pass this Bill we may find time to deal with another agricultural issue if the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to seek our consent for it. I will let him address that later.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a few moments at third reading to describe the amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act, which I think all Members of the House know has been a very, very important part of the income support program in western Canada.
I might note in passing that there are a variety of support programs. Eastern Canadian producers are able to participate
in the agriculture stabilization program, but at recent meetings which took place in Toronto and which I had an opportunity to attend with the federal Minister and his provincial counterparts, there was increased interest in the possibility of creating some sort of national stabilization program. Some talks are being held along that line, but in the meantime it is extremely important to the agricultural well-being of western Canada that the Western Grain Stabilization Act be as effective as it possibly can be. These amendments are designed to achieve that, and I appreciate the supportive sentiments of the Hon. Member who just spoke.
This legislation is part of a long-range program. I guess all of us in this House are conscious of the fact that we must respond to the crisis of the moment in an ad hoc fashion, but I think we all believe that the ideal solutions are long-term solutions, and this legislation is part of that umbrella which has played an important role these last three or four years.
As you will recall, in his meeting with farm leaders last December, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced that some changes to this Act would be proposed as part of a comprehensive agricultural policy to assist producers in financial need primarily as a result of the trade war which has been going on between the European Community and the U.S. Unfortunately, we are very much victims of that war.
Some of the things we have done have been very important. I would refer just in passing to the Special Grains Program No. 2 which of course injected $1.1 billion into the hands of all grain producers. Then there were fuel tax rebates and other programs. However, the legislation before us today addresses what has probably become the most important income support program available to western Canadian producers. During the course of this last year alone the participants received some $1.4 billion. That was of tremendous benefit to the 135,000 western Canadian farmers who are part of the program.
However, we are concerned about the fact that not all farmers chose to participate, for a variety of reasons. Certainly a number of farmers disliked the program when it was originally created, some for philosophical reasons, some because they feared it would not be productive to join. Now that we are in a situation where a lot of the income support made available to western farmers is provided by this program we are troubled by the fact that an estimated 15 per cent of western farmers are not participants. These amendments are designed to encourage a significant percentage of that group to join and benefit.
As a result, the 10 per cent penalty for rejoining has been removed. The deadline for participation in the 1987-88 crop year will be extended so non-participants can rejoin. More crops are being covered. I think that is appropriate because western agriculture is becoming more diversified and a number of crops such as mixed grain, sunflower seeds, safflower seeds, buckwheat, peas, lentils, faba beans and canaryseeds, to name just a few, have been added. Payments for rejoining and conditional participants has been increased.
July 26, 1988

In addition, we are trying to put the program on a solid financial footing, of course. Unfortunately, we are now looking at a $2.2 billion deficit. If this program were operating without strong federal government support it would probably no longer be in operation, as my hon. friend suggested. The deficit must be addressed sooner or later, and as announced last December we decided to try to address it sooner and ensure that it be viable and that those who participate understand its viability and are encouraged to continue to participate.
We hope to address the deficit in three ways. The debt write-down of $750 million in this legislation will, apart from the obvious, further reduce the deficit by virtue of the fact there will be a reduction in interest charges levied against the account. In addition, there will be an appropriate increase in the Government and producer share of the levy. It is only fair that mechanism be reformed to make it more responsive to the fund's condition. Unfortunately, in the past, when the fund was in a surplus position, the levy seemed to be rising. When it moved into a deficit the levy seemed to be declining. That did not make any sense and that is why the amendments are before us.
Without the $750 million deficit write-down we believe that any increase in producer levies which would have been necessary would have been so prohibitive as to have discouraged participation and therefore would have reduced the effectiveness of the program. As I say that, I am conscious of the fact that there is a significant group in western Canada, the so-called committee of non-participants, who appeared before the legislative committee and made representations. We are hoping that upon reflection they will see there are some advantages for them in the amended program and many will be encouraged to participate.
As a result of increases for this crop year and next, producer levies will be increased from 1 per cent to 4 per cent. The Government's share will be increased from 3 per cent to 6 per cent. The federal Government will of course continue to pay in the bulk of the fee, and I for one have suggested in the past that the provinces at some point might wish to join and make this a tripartite program, but it may be no surprise to you if I were to say that there has been no provincial stampede in that direction as yet.
The federal Government believes we must maintain the effectiveness of this Act because it is the only program which automatically makes payments to western grain farmers when their income drops. We do not believe we can depend on ad hoc approaches even though they are sometimes necessary. We believe we need long-term programs like this. We believe it has proven its effectiveness, particularly in these last three or four years. There were many doubters, but we believe these amendments will strengthen the program and broaden the farm safety net by encouraging more producers to join. Therefore, we hope the Bill will be supported by the House.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-132, amendments to the Western
Western Grain Stabilization Act
Grain Stabilization Act. This Act has always represented a bit of a dilemma for western farmers. In its original form it did not go far enough. It did not look to the income needs of individual farmers. Instead, it paid attention to the cash flow in the total region. We had disparities and odd situations occurring with the pay-outs that were generated, such as in 1977 when I, as a farmer and member of the program, received a payment although I had one of my best income years ever. I took that payment and paid a big chunk of it back to Revenue Canada as income tax. I think it would have been much more useful to the region had we been able to target it in parallel with crop insurance so that those who had an income requirement would have reaped the benefit of the program.
I have some reservations about the over-all direction of the program because I think we will find it will have to be changed and perhaps replaced with something else because it is not available to all farmers unless they apply. The program cannot be applied to individual income needs and the ups and downs of a particular crop production. It does not run parallel with crop insurance so it does not do much to address income stability on the individual farm. There is no disaster component in this program nor is there a disaster component in the crop insurance program. I think that three successive droughts in the last five years would show us that something like that is needed in any future income stabilization program.
As well, the fact that it has been a regional program has, to some extent, been a problem. It becomes a problem when we end up, as we have now, with a deficit of close to $3 billion in this program.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, having gone through the original debate, the arguments about whether or not the premiums were set properly. Mr. Whelan, in the last days of his administration, fiddled with the formula so it would trigger a pay-out during an election. With the advent of this administration, the formula was further fiddled with so it would pay a much larger pay-out. In short, the result has been a deficit of approximately $3 billion.
That 15 per cent to 18 per cent of farmers who are still outside the program are facing a real dilemma. They do not know if they should rush in and take this last payment that is now open to them with this window of opportunity before August 1 and then be responsible for premium increases of 400 per cent, the premiums moving from 1 per cent to 4 per cent, immediately upon joining the program. At the same time, the Government's share of the contribution will drop. It now pays $3 for every producer dollar, and that amount will drop to $6 for every $4 producers put in.
Some of the producers who are outside the program are asking themselves if they should join now only to be responsible for paying off the $3-billion deficit. The Government has responded with a bit of a carrot by saying that $7 50 million of that deficit will be written off by some of the amendments

July 26, 1988
Canada Grain Act
presented in this Bill and therefore the deficit will be only $2.2 billion. However, this still does not solve the dilemma facing those people.
Over the last five years, the program has been changed to the point where it is no longer on a financially sound footing. The combination of amendments made by the former Minister, Mr. Whelan, and by the current Minister, has changed the position of the program from having a net figure of just over $1 billion in the fund to having a net deficit of something in the order of $3 billion. In the short time of just five years, it has paid out approximately $4 billion more than it has taken in. To me, this points out that recent amendments have made this a very shaky financial institution for the stabilization of grain incomes on the Prairies and sets the stage for a complete revamping of the stabilization attitude to grain production that exists right across Canada. It gives any future Government, a Government which my Party may form, an opportunity to introduce a new concept of income insurance that would in fact provide stabilization to individual farmers based on their production and their income, and would have a disaster component built into it in the event of the kind of drought or hail storms that occur on the Prairies or some of the local disasters that can occur in the rest of the country.
It is a great opportunity to see the program's failings as they exist. These amendments are an attempt to make the best we can out of a bad piece of cloth. It is a badly made coat which we are trying to wear to keep some of the rain out. With the experience we have had since the early 1970s, we can now see ways of making a much better income stabilization program for farmers, and I hope that we can have the opportunity to present such a program after the next election.
At this time, I have no major objection to the Government's attempt to make this badly fitting garment somewhat more waterproof. I hope we can therefore allow the Government to go through with the amendments, even though they do not correct the over-all problems that have existed with the western grain stabilization program from its inception right up to this time.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief point of clarification. The Hon. Member who just spoke referred to producers joining before July 31 of this year, before the end of the current crop year. It is important to point out that the Bill has in fact provided for an extension of that deadline so that current non-participants would have a chance to join retroactive to August 1 of 1987. They will have, as I understand it, 60 days after proclamation of this Bill in which to join, which, as a practical matter, should run the deadline up to approximately October 1, and producers can rest assured that they will receive plenty of notice as to the actual deadline.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you may find that there is a unanimous
disposition on the part of Members of the House to consider Bill C-112 for third reading at this time.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA GRAIN ACT
Frank Oberle: that Bill C-112, an Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary would have wished to speak first. If so, I would gladly give my place, and if not, I will make my remarks now. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can summarize, after having heard what other Hon. Members have said.


Mr. Nickerson:: Let's get through with it.


Don Boudria: I think the Hon. Member across is not aware that we have had discussions in order to co-operate by giving the Government unanimous consent to proceed with third reading of this Bill today. This just goes to show that when it is reasonable to do so, the Opposition always co-operates with the Government. Sometimes we cannot co-operate with the Government when it is too unreasonable, but when it is reasonable, the Opposition can be reasonable as well, and I am sure that Canadians are noting the consent we are giving to the Government.
Bill C-112 is a Bill about which we have reservations because of a provision in the Bill. Nevertheless, we have conceded to giving that unanimous consent. That just goes to show the kind of co-operation that can exist.
The precis of the Bill provided by the Government to Members of the House states that the amendments to the Canada Grain Act provide for clarification and standardization of terminology used in the Act. That is true, of course, and we recognize that. It provides for the authority to establish by regulation, subject to Governor in Council approval, time limits for the deferral of pricing, the storage of grain in elevators and payments for grain by licensed elevators and grain dealers. That is true as well. It provides for the limitation of protection of securities posted within the commission to actual producers holding cash purchase tickets and the clarification of which documents are to be issued by licensed elevators for grain dealers. It provides for the consolidation of authority to establish and change grades by regulations of the commission subject to Governor in Council approval, the
July 26, 1988

flexibility to package and certify specific qualities of grain and, finally, specific terms of office for commissioners and assistant commissioners.
You will notice the way in which the Government worded that last part. It is just a little less than accurate to say, "to provide for specific terms of office for commissioners and assistant commissioners". As I indicated previously, that really means that the Government has decided to provide for a guaranteed seven-year term of office for one of its colleagues. The Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) was all upset a while ago because I dared to raise this issue in the House of Commons. The Member was so successful in his representation that I was not going to speak on this issue again. However, since he raised it again I thought that I should mention it once again myself just to remind Canadians of what is going on.
In his remarks the Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek said that only a Liberal could say that this issue is inappropriate, implying-if you can believe it-partisan motives on my part. I know that you do not believe that either, Mr. Speaker. However, do not think for one minute that I am the only one concerned about this. In fact, a very well respected newspaper, The Toronto Star, has raised this as an issue of concern.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: I see that a few Tories wake up whenever you talk about The Toronto Star. Well, if the Tories will cool down for a minute I will give them other sources almost as factual as The Toronto Star. The Manitoba Co-operator was of the same opinion as I on this. Tories sometimes believe that everyone in the media is out to get them. I suppose they can believe whatever they like, however inaccurate it is.
I will remind you of a letter sent by Prairie Pools Inc. I ask the Conservative Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) to pay attention to this because it is important and we may ask questions later. Prairie Pools Inc. sent a letter to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture who happens to be the Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. The letter is dated July 18. This letter was not written by myself as an opposition Member of Parliament but by Prairie Pools Inc. It says:
In regard to Bill C-112, the three Pools support the authority of the Canadian Grain Commission in establishing and maintaining standards of quality for Canadian grains and oilseeds and regulating grain handling in Canada... PPI believes that it is imperative that appointments be made on the basis of relevant background and requisite skills to ensure continuity and effectiveness within the CGC. PPI also has some concerns with the length of the renewable term of appointment contemplated in the legislation of up to seven years.
I did not cook this up. I certainly did not tell Prairie Pools Inc. to include this in the letter it sent to the Government. Even if I had tried, I doubt that I would have had much influence in causing it to do so because it is, of course, a pretty
Canada Grain Act
independent-thinking group which says what it wants based on what it believes is correct.
Prairie Pools Inc. says that the Government has failed by not indicating specific qualifications necessary to do this job and by providing for a seven-year term of appointment.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Renewable.


Don Boudria: Yes, as the Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) has just indicated, a renewable seven-year term.
I just wanted to express those concerns to the House. We do agree with the other provisions but I have strong reservations about that clause. My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Gary (Mr. Axworthy) and the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) have expressed those concerns in the House. The Member for Algoma even moved an amendment at committee. I expressed those same reservations at report stage earlier today.
I hope that the representations we have made have convinced government back-benchers to take a second look. I know that deep down inside some of the Tory back-benchers who will not be getting such a sinecure are probably wondering why this Member should be getting such a sinecure when they will not. When the Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha), who is seated over there, is defeated shortly no one will give him a juicy job at $80,000 a year, much less a juicy job renewable for two seven-year terms.
I remind Members of that and remind them to be free and independent thinkers because the Government will not take care of them in that way. Conservative Members of Parliament should not opt for a system which provides for appointments in such a manner.

Mr. Speaker, this concludes the remarks I wanted to make at third-reading stage of Bill C-112, and I venture to hope that the House will pass the Bill today, even if personally I have to express my reservations about the clause in the Bill that allows Commissioners to be appointed for seven years, a new formula not found in the existing Act.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks at third reading stage in support of Bill C-112. This legislation is long overdue. It has been 17 years since there have been any substantial changes to this Act. The Government is very committed to consulting with the industry, and the amendments before us today are a by-product of that consultative process.
The Canada Grain Act provides a framework for the very important work of the Canadian Grain Commission. It is exceedingly important that we in this House affirm our support for the Canadian Grain Commission because, as I said

July 26, 1988
earlier today, to a very large degree the integrity of our reputation in international grain markets is directly a result of the activities of the Canadian Grain Commission. We certainly want to reaffirm our commitment to the commission and to the quality of product which it ensures is made available for sale throughout the world by the Canadian Wheat Board. Those high quality standards in the regulation of the grain handling system are an integral part of our entire marketing process. The well-being of Canadian agriculture depends on the success of this committee.
I would like to address briefly the issue of the length of service which Canadian Grain Commission members will provide as a result of these amendments because that is of some concern to Hon. Members in the Opposition. At one time we in this country, as in most other democracies, used to have a civil service which was largely, perhaps even essentially, politicized. One of the reasons for that was the fact that all members of the civil service were appointed at the pleasure of the Minister and, consequently, were subject to dismissal by a Minister at any give time.
Canadian legislators who came before us very wisely decided to reform that system. One of the ways in which they did it was by ensuring that those who had appointments in the Public Service were guaranteed the opportunity to function free of political interference. We moved toward a non-politicized civil service by moving in the direction of permanent appointments. That was an important and necessary direction which was established some time ago.
In my opinion, the proposed amendments which will give assistant grain commissioners and commissioners a specific term of office is a step in that same direction. We are hereby ensuring that those individuals will be free to act irrespective of even the displeasure of their superiors. They will be free to do what is necessary to maintain the integrity of the Canadian grain industry. I believe that these proposed amendments are very much in the continuing tradition of a non-politicized Public Service and I believe they have the good support of the industry throughout the country.
We are striving to make the Canada Grain Act more efficient. These amendments essentially involve two categories: to improve the administration of the Act and to provide for more flexibility in grading and in standards.
The first category of amendments improve the administration of the Canada Grain Act by including amendments that adapt to new grain handling and information processing techniques.
There are also amendments which define the specific terms for those who hold the important offices provided for in the Act.
The second category of amendments provide for more flexibility in developing grades and grade standards. For
example, in the future the commission will be able to package and certify specific types of grain according to what buyers want. It is a changing market and something we have discovered is that the grains standards and labelling we have employed in the past are not necessarily totally consistent with what buyers in different parts of the world are seeking today.
We believe that the new flexibility provided for by these amendments will permit us to tap into new markets. That is extremely important in a very competitive international market.
The third category of amendments are those which clarify the financial protection operative of the Canada Grain Act. They were dealt with before in the committee.
The Canadian Grain Commission has helped Canada maintain a very solid reputation as a reliable supplier of high quality grain and grain products. The amendments we are proposing today will make it easier for the commission to operate. We think that is good news for all those who are dependent on the Canadian grain industry.


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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is unanimous consent to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12.33 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, this morning the National Action Committee on the Status of Women said that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is like an iceberg. There is much more
July 26, 1988
[Stage Direction]
to it than what appears. In other words, this is not just a trade agreement but an agreement which threatens Canadian independence with respect to our resources, our water, our energy, the environment, social policy and regional development.
We in the Liberal Party are not opposed to freer trade, but we are opposed to this agreement. Unfortunately, many Canadians are confused by this complex deal and want time to examine it at greater length. This Bill will change the nature of Canada and make us a quasi colony of the United States. It is for this reason we must have an election before the trade Bill is passed.
Let Canadians decide if they want this deal or not. What is the Government afraid of? Call an election!

Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the Senate is an institution that costs $34 million a year and does not benefit Canada. Rather, it is an obsolete body that must be abolished.
Canadian democracy, as we would like it to be, has no place for this second chamber which intervenes in a partisan way without any mandate to do so.
The Canadian provinces have only one legislative body, made up of elected representatives who have had to go through the democratic process. The political development of the provinces is not endangered by having a unicameral legislature.
If the Liberals continue to intend to use the Senate to block the passage of the Free Trade Agreement and to insist that Canadians vote on this issue in the next election, we too can ask Canadians to speak out for the abolition of the Senate.


FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, not many Canadians condone the use of the brutal leghold trap in the fur industry. It is obvious the European Community believes that no one should make their living by the inhumane suffering of animals. An animal caught in a leghold trap endures tremendous suffering for a considerable amount of time. It has been documented that animals have
chewed off their own legs to escape the pain caused them by these traps.
Alternate trapping devices do exist and they are more humane than the leghold device. A motion passed by this House on July 20 even states that Canada is a world leader in humane trap research. However, while this motion is aimed at maintaining the livelihood of many Canadians, it is really only a stop gap mechanism, falling far short of providing a solution to the controversy.
If the fur industry is to continue, then those involved in it must change their trapping methods forthwith. They must understand that using the leghold trap will always bring about a public outcry and will lead to the elimination of the fur industry's domestic as well as overseas markets, and even an end to the fur industry itself in Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the destruction of our planet's rain forests will lead to environmental disaster. Scientists have predicted the Amazon Basin which contains the world's largest great rain forest, covering an area the size of Western Europe, will be destroyed by the end of the next decade. Rain forests in other parts of the planet have similar futures. With that destruction there will be a sharp increase in the level of carbon dioxide.
As carbon dioxide levels increase, so does the warming of our planet, which creates the greenhouse effect. Our planet is already experiencing its effects now. The present drought in North America and last year's unpredictable winter in Europe are examples of what we can expect. We in the developing nations must do whatever is necessary to reverse this trend while at the same time providing these nations with assistance so that they have viable economic alternatives.


SHIPYARDS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has started to repeat what it did in the 1984 election, namely make promises that it will not keep.
We had the best evidence of that yesterday, when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) was in Quebec City to lead the people of the Lauzon, Sorel and Vickers

July 26, 1988
shipyards to believe that the Government would build 12 minesweepers.
After Quebecers were cheated on the frigates, after the Ministers and Members from the region had promised spinoffs, we see the Minister of National Defence again trying to lull Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, the people at the shipyards in Lauzon, Sorel and Montreal will not make the same mistake of believing this Government. They want elections so they can beat this Conservative Government.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, Quebecers will never forgive the Leader of the Liberal Opposition (Mr. Turner) for working hand and glove with the Senate to block the will of Canada's elected representatives. The Francophone press in Quebec has severely criticized the Liberal Leader's strategy. On July 22, Claude Masson wrote in La Presse about the undemocratic nature of a decision he qualified as inconceivable and unpardonable. Paul-Andre Comeau, in an editorial in Le Devoir of July 22, under the heading "A desperate wager", asked the following question: "Is the Liberal Leader playing Russian roulette, with bullets in every single chamber?"
Mr. Speaker, this new blunder by the Liberal Leader shows once again that he doesn't understand the people of Quebec. Most Quebecers think the Senate is useless and costs too much money, and they will never have any sympathy for a politician who hides behind the skirts of this institution. In the next federal election, Quebecers will make the Liberal Leader pay a very high price for this underhanded manoeuvre which reveals a lack of the most elementary leadership!

[English}


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I sense cynicism and skepticism off this Hill because of a lack of balance for fair economic policy coupled with fair social policy. Conservative scales of justice are tilted by a market-driven philosophy for its own sake.
Seniors see through the Government's hypocritical language to the fine print realities of living in this Tory land, seniors and
middle-income earners who understand they are bearing the brunt of this Tory-vision world.
What an unfair, hidden, tax-ridden destiny, seniors tell me have been foisted on them. Yet the Government thinks Canadians are stupid. After taxing hundreds of dollars from each of our pockets since 1984 it thinks that we are fooled and will say thank you for putting back a few dollars in this month's pay-cheque. We are not deceived.
Does it think us so senile that we cannot remember its attack on fixed incomes through a sneaky attempt at deindexing our pensions, or for even considering a food tax? Shame on the Government for deindexing the tax table, for removing the $1,000 pension investment income deduction, for discriminating in allocations of spousal allowances, for attempting cuts in our New Horizons programs, and particularly for calling its trade deal free when it is a total sell-out of Canada.
There is no integrity out there in Tory-land. Seniors will never trust a Conservative Government again.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government stands firmly behind the Farm Credit Corporation. That is good news for Canada's farmers.
The $400 million in support announced last week by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will ensure that the FCC continues to assist the agricultural community. This is a first step toward financial recovery for many Canadian farmers.
To ensure total financial recovery for the FCC, additional funds will be provided as needed over the next three years. The corporation will be able to continue to provide long-term credit to farmers at competitive rates. Farmers with outstanding debt to the FCC will continue to be treated fairly.
Saskatchewan farmers are carrying the largest FCC debt load. This announcement is very good news for the farmers in our province.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the tabling of the report by the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council on the employment needs and policies for Newfoundland and Labrador is welcomed.
July 26, 1988

The Advisory Council's report has supported the recommendations put forward by the New Democratic caucus on the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and on the need to concentrate on the traditional industries of Newfoundland, such as the fishery, as a source of future employment and prosperity.
On ACOA, the report supports the New Democratic caucus proposals to have board members of the agency include representatives of business, labour, and social organizations, which proposals were rejected by the Government. The council supports the New Democratic Party's proposal that ACOA funding be allocated to Newfoundland on the basis of its economic disparity, rather than to be treated as if its needs were the same as the other maritime provinces. It supports the long-held view of this Party that it is time for Canada to adopt a policy of full employment for our young people based upon the Swedish model.
Newfoundland and Labrador will need 80,000 new jobs between now and 1995 in order to meet their needs. Only 18,000 are ever likely to be created under current policies.
Hibernia is not the answer, and never will be for the unemployed of Newfoundland. New approaches are needed.
I call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) to announce immediately that she will implement the proposals and recommendations of this committee so that the unemployed of Newfoundland will have some hope for the future.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: By asking the Senate to block the free trade legislation, Mr. Speaker, John Turner has acted irresponsibly. This partisan manoeuvre sets a dangerous precedent. By using their majority of non-elected representatives in the Senate, the Liberals are short-circuiting the parliamentary decision-making process to oppose the will of a majority of Conservative Members, who were elected as a result of the clear desire for change indicated by Canadians in the election of 1984. This was a desperate gesture on the part of the Liberal Leader. According to the polls, most Quebecers and Canadians are in favour of free trade. There are so many benefits-
Conscious of the fact that his Party will go down to defeat, the Liberal Leader has attempted this manoeuvre before the election to dramatize the debate. This goes against the economic interests of Canadians. Formerly, federal Liberals in
Quebec were considered as brothers by the provincial Liberals. Subsequently, the climate changed. No longer brothers, they became cousins. But today, federal Liberals in Quebec have definitely become the enemies of the provincial Liberals in that province. By opposing an agreement that would be highly beneficial for Quebec, Mr. Speaker, John Turner's federal Liberals have dug their own grave.
Mr. Speaker, the ones who are being manipulated are the non-elected senators. As Mr. Masson pointed out in La Presse: "They are taking part in a highly irregular, outrageous, blasphemous and anti-democratic manoeuvre". Shame on the Senators who let themselves be manipulated!


RAILWAYS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) has now received a report from the federal Rail Safety Task Force, and as we have learned from one of the task force members who issued a minority report a few weeks ago, the charge was that the task force was biased in favour of the railway lobby and that a plan to relocate rail lines for dangerous goods transportation away from the Metropolitan Toronto area, and other urban centres, to less populated areas, was only recommended for further study based on the question of economics. I beg to differ.
The question of relocating railway lines and slowing down railway speeds should not be settled on the basis of economics but on the safety and viability of communities living along those railway lines. Various neighbourhoods in my own riding of York West are already burdened and frustrated with the noise levels and vibrations and the de-evaluation of their properties because of these railway lines. They do not need another threat of dangerous spills in their community.
I ask the Minister, in preparing a response, to take a lesson from the mishaps that have already occurred and to establish that the fact of safety must be the first, the foremost, and the undisputed priority for this Government to consider.


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the PFRA has for some 50 years developed and managed water reservoirs, irrigation projects and other works in southwestern Saskatchewan. Current PFRA patrons

July 26, 1988
appreciate the expertise of the PFRA and express their satisfaction with the job that PFRA has done. The patrons are therefore opposed to any transfer of irrigation projects to provincial management under the Saskatchewan Water Corporation.
The Palliser Triangle is a unique area of Canada, a low rainfall area beset by periodic drought, an area wherein water management and conservation are of critical importance. The farm families who utilize the irrigation system appreciate the competence and expertise built up by PFRA over the past six decades. They therefore reject any suggestion of transfer of their projects to the Saskatchewan Water Corporation. They are unanimous in requesting that the federal Government, through the PFRA, continue to operate and manage the District Three southwestern Saskatchewan irrigation projects.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make which I hope will be brought to the attention of the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who is the Government's pointman with respect to the redevelopment of the CNR east yards in Winnipeg. It has to do with the fact that the old CNR steam plant is being closed down and a new steam plant is being built under the auspices of VIA.
The concern is that the employees who now work at the CN steam plant are not being given an opportunity to transfer over to the new plant, to the VIA plant, in the way that many other CNR employees have been given such opportunities over the years, as various jobs have gone from CN to VIA Rail. I would call on the Hon. Member for Provencher to look into this and to see if some justice can be done, if these CNR employees can be treated in the same way as previous CNR employees have been treated when there has been a transfer of jobs to VIA.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the Rideau River at Mooney's Bay is a polluted mess. When storm sewers run off into the river-and it is raining today here in Ottawa-the fecal coliform count in the river rises to unacceptable limits and the beach is closed. For all intents and purposes there is no industrial pollution going into the river; it is strictly from domestic animals.
On the weekend I visited the marina at Mooney's Bay with my three children. As we walked around the kids looked at me and said: "Dad, you aren't going to go into that water, are you?" I said: "No, I'm not". They said: "It looks rotten." The youngest, the five-year old, said: "It looks brutal". I told them that I was not going to go in it, but that many people do: boaters do, canoeists do, and water skiers do.
If you are ever out there water-skiing on Mooney's Bay, Mr. Speaker, and you fall in, you may become so polluted that you will have to go to hospital to be injected with something.
The river is a mess. It has to be cleaned up, with cooperation from the federal Government, municipal governments, and particularly the Ministry of the Environment in the Province of Ontario. I pledge myself to the people of Ottawa South to work closely to clean up the river so that we can all enjoy swimming in it.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-WATER RESOURCES
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, last week, Mel Clark, a former GATT negotiator for Canada, and Don Gamble of the Rawson Academy of Aquatic Sciences, informed the committee studying the trade Bill that the proposed federal water Bill would not really stop water exports and diversions because all Acts of Parliament will be overridden by the trade legislation.
In addition, they pointed out that even an amendment to the trade Bill would not protect Canadian water from being exported and diverted to the United States. Clark and Gamble insist that the trade agreement itself must be amended if we want, with certainty, to exclude water from the trade Bill. We in the Liberal Party have also said so.
Evidently, since the trade deal as proposed will not stop water exports and diversions, it is clear that only Canadians will be able to stop the trade deal with their vote in the next election, and hopefully that will be soon.


CHILD CARE
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: funding it advances so grudgingly will not be adequate to the need.
In Thunder Bay the city provides 165 subsidized spaces in its excellent municipal child care centres, but at least 320 children are left out in the cold or in whatever arrangements their desperate parents are able to make.
Canadian children need child care arrangements and a national strategy that meets all the needs with the type of high quality care that they deserve.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-MEDIA RESPONSIBILITY
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement will not affect senior citizens' pensions, medicare, or water, and the agreement can be cancelled by Canada at any time on six months' notice. You know that, Mr. Speaker, I know that, and Liberal Senator van Roggen knows it too. That's why he publicly supports the free trade agreement. Even our Canadian dollar knows it because its value drops every time the Opposition threatens to rip up the agreement.
The Opposition has a duty to criticize and spread fear, if possible, about the free trade agreement and everything else the Government does regardless of the merit of its argument. However, the press and media have a duty not to spread fear but rather to report the free trade agreement and all news in a fair and balanced manner. I hope that they will bear that in mind.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister for International Trade. Yesterday the American President sent the final form of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement to the U.S. Congress for ratification. With that particular piece of legislation the United States has gained substantial new powers against Canadian exports. Included within the Bill is a brand new set of procedures to harass Canadian exports. The Government finds itself with a much tougher set of U.S. trade laws now than when it began the negotiations two and a half years ago.
Considering that Canadian exports will now face an additional form of scrutiny and harassment that no other
Oral Questions
country will face, how can the Government put the Canadian people at such a disadvantage? Would the Minister not agree that it is important now to have an election to allow people to decide, before this country agrees to additional new U.S. trade laws that will provide substantial new protectionism against Canada?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, that sounds rather peculiar coming from a member of the Liberal caucus. He wants the people to decide. I thought the Senate is to decide, the unelected Senate.
Yesterday the President of the United States delivered to an elected Senate the proposed U.S. legislation. It is not a Senate made up of appointees, 15 of whom were appointed in the last few weeks of the mouldering term of former Prime Minister Trudeau and the few weeks term of then Prime Minister Turner. That is the difference between the two systems.
I notice that Manitoba Liberal Leader Sharon Carstairs says she has some concerns about these tactics. She has reservations about the constitutionality of them. There is some danger of a backlash. She thinks it is an incredible gamble that could be very badly misinterpreted nation-wide. She is exactly right.
With respect to the legislation introduced yesterday, I am glad to report that several of the offensive provisions of the draft legislation have been removed, including-


Ms. Copps:: Get the hook!


John Carnell Crosbie: Apparently the hon. lady is not interested in listening to what is in the legislation. They are not interested in listening here. They do not want Senators to examine and listen to what is in the legislation. Why would they be concerned about the U.S. legislation?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. If the Minister is concerned about democratic choice, then why don't you put it to the ultimate test, which is an election? Put it before the people of Canada. That is where the real choice lies.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member will want to address the Hon. Minister through the Chair. If we can keep our minds on the rules we will get along just fine.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to address the Minister in kind by simply saying that if he wants an election, call it today, we are ready to go. Don't worry about the Senate.


TERMS OF U.S. LEGISLATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. President and his administration, and now Congress, are bringing in legislation to implement the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. That legislation will include further powers of scrutiny, further powers of monitoring,

July 26, 1988
Oral Questions
further powers of harassment, and further powers of retaliatory action. With all those new trade powers, is it not true that the result of these negotiations has been improved U.S. protectionism against Canada? Under those circumstances let us have an election and let the people decide who is right or wrong.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the position is that the hon. gentleman's Leader has now shown that it does not matter whom the people of Canada elect to form a Government. It is an unelected Senate, which will have a majority of Liberal Senators until the year 2008 if they all live to be 75, which is going to be making the important decisions for Canada.
For the first time since 1913 a Member of the House of Commons has called on the unelected Senate, the 50 appointees of former Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau, to stop the House of Commons, the elected body, in its tracks.
Where were they when Prime Minister Trudeau got elected opposing wage and price controls and then came into office and put wage and price controls into effect? Where was the Senate then? Where was the Senate when the Auto Pact was introduced in the House? Where was the Senate when GATT was introduced in the House? The Senate is the unelected Government of Canada and the people of Canada are going to have to decide that issue in the next election.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, before the Hon. Minister bursts from an excess of gas, why does he not simply call the election and be relieved of his discomfort and pain? That is the best way of dealing with it.


Mr. Speaker:: That, of course, was a question but I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question directly to the Minister.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I suppose you know we will probably never get a straight answer from that Minister.
The U.S. Congress now has a Bill in front of it which it can amend and which includes additional powers to monitor Canadian imports to determine if they have subsidies, and the right to take retaliatory action. It is a Bill that gives United States Congress legislation full superiority over the trade agreement, compared to the fact that our trade Bill puts all our legislation subservient to it. All those measures create major discrimination, discrepancy and disadvantage for Canadians. Under those circumstances, is it not only proper, right and responsible for this Government to call an election and let the Canadian people decide? That is the real democratic choice.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, what feeble logic. Why does the hon. gentleman
not call on President Reagan to call an election? Why did he not call on President Reagan to resign his seat and run again, using the same demented logic that he is using today?
The hon. gentleman has nothing to depend upon but the senatorial lemmings in the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition is now leader of the senatorial lemmings, and he is going to have an election. When the election comes, it will be decided by the Prime Minister in accordance with the Constitution, not by the hidden Government, not by Senators crawling out of their crevices in the Senate and then trying to force elections. The Constitution provides for a democracy here in Canada and that is what we are going to have.


DAY CARE CENTRES
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday the Government tabled its Bill on child care. We looked at the Bill and found that our forebodings about this Bill were correct, namely that access to daycare for all children in Canada is not guaranteed and will depend on the choice the provinces will make. The provinces have a choice between two programs: the CAP which prioritizes lower and middle-income families, and the new legislation tabled yesterday which makes no specific mention of these families. Why didn't the Minister specify these groups in his legislation so that all children in this country would have access to day care?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member that in all areas of social policy which fall within provincial jurisdiction, former Liberal Governments when they received agreements, whether on health care, on medical care or on the Canada Pension Plan, just to name three, and as recently as the Canada Health Act, attempts were made by the former Minister, my predecessor, to bring in national standards but the Government did not get national standards because of constitutional requirements.
Therefore, the Hon. Member should not think that, just because provinces have jurisdiction in the area of social policy, there will not be standards that will be acceptable to the public or that the provinces are recalcitrant in establishing standards. When the legislation is passed, we will have federal-provincial agreements with the provinces. In each and every case where there is an agreement, it will reflect not only the Bill but also the agreement between the federal and provincial Governments.
July 26, 1988

I say to the Hon. Member very clearly that if she is asking that standards be imposed by the federal Government, that was done neither by her Government nor by any other Government. They were national objectives-


Sheila Maureen Copps: False, false.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East is as uninformed on this issue as any other issue on which she has been uninformed.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister that I was discussing accessibility for all Canadian children, and the former Minister of National Health and Welfare got five national standards.


MINIMUM STANDARDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the same Minister. We still have no answer as to what will constitute the minimum standard of care in this so-called child care program. There are no guidelines in the law. There is an obvious abdication of responsibility as to what aspects, if any, of child care will have to meet minimum standards, whether it will be the training of child care workers or merely administrative skills.
How can the Government guarantee these minimum standards without specifying in the law what aspects of child care will have to meet such standards? Will the minimum standards be left entirely to negotiation with the provinces? Is that the Minister's vision of a fair public policy for our children?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is wrong. There are not national standards in the Canada Health Act. There are five objectives. In fact, if she will talk to former Cabinet Ministers in her Party she will learn that the former Minister of Health tried to get standards and was not able constitutionally to do so. Therefore, we are left with the situation of having objectives rather than standards in the Canada Health Act.
Second, we have principles. We have the principles of 200,000 spaces, and a cost-sharing arrangement, as well as the agreements with the provincial Governments.
Finally, the Member says that there should be national standards with respect to training. I point out to her that teachers, lawyers, and pharmacists hold provincial licences. She knows that as does every Member of the House. She is trying to score a political point which does not exist constitutionally in Canada.
We will have agreements with the provinces and I trust that the provinces will want standards which meet public criteria.
Oral Questions TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-PLYWOOD EXPORTS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question with the Minister for International Trade who last month indicated that he and his Government had protested the plan of the United States to stop plywood exports going into that country despite the terms of the trade deal which had been signed.
The United States administration has now put its Act before Congress and that Act contains precisely that attempt to stop our plywood exports unilaterally.
What does the Minister intend to do in response to this slap in the face to the Canadian people and to himself personally?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, as usual of course, is exaggerating the situation. I did not hear the hon. gentleman announce that he was pleased by the fact that several changes had been made in the U.S. legislation. For example, an obnoxious provision that the Canadian provinces should be looked to for their concurrence with the agreement has been removed. An obnoxious provision which requires that lobsters comply with U.S. size requirements has been removed.
There have been several improvements, but the hon. gentleman always looks on the gloomy side. He cannot see anything good in life at all and I feel sorry for him in that respect.
With regard to the plywood situation, it is an attempt by the Americans to get better access for their plywood in Canada. It is not the other way around. Unfortunately, there has been a disagreement between us as to whether U.S. plywood meets the requirements set by CMHC. CMHC did an evaluation with which the United States is not satisfied. We have set up a panel of experts to test Canadian and U.S. standards to see whether they can come to an agreement on whether U.S. and Canadian standards should or can be the same.
In tire meantime the U.S. is proceeding in a way which, in our view, would be a violation of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement once it goes into effect. If that is the case, when it goes into effect we will proceed either to withdraw concessions or to dispute resolution in connection with that.


Steven W. Langdon: So in fact, Mr. Speaker, we will start this great new era of trade relations with the United States with a trade war. What nonsense, what absolute nonsense.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER PROTEST
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, now is the time to protest. Now is the time to start shouting at Americans, not at Canadians. Now is the time to try to get

July 26, 1988
Oral Questions
some action. What action is the Minister prepared to take now to protest and counter this insult to him and this country?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, imagine the hon. gentleman talking about a trade war. This is the representative of a Party whose Leader, if elected as Prime Minister, is going to go to Washington and tell the President, "I'm down here to tear down the free trade agreement", as compared to the Leader of the Liberal Party who is going down to tear up the agreement.
Following that the President will say to new Prime Minister Broadbent, "Too bad, Mr. Prime Minister, I just tore up the Auto Pact". Then we will see what kind of a trade war there is.


Mr. Broadbent:: You've already done it. You've already torn it up.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is Tories who go to Washington to pass messages. Any message we pass would be from Ottawa to the United States.


AMERICANS' AMENDMENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, there are many changes in the U.S. Bill which are not in the free trade agreement. Will this Government proceed with its Bill despite these unilateral changes?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman talks about changes. What about the New Democratic Party message? Last Wednesday the Leader of the New Democratic Party gave the message that he was saying aye, aye to the Leader of the Liberal Party, that the Senate should be called in in an undemocratic way to stop the free trade legislation which might be passed by a majority in this House.
Then on Friday the message from the Leader of the New Democratic Party was that that would be totally undemocratic, and the New Dinosaur Party is never undemocratic.
Those were two different messages in three days from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and the hon. gentleman has the gall to criticize the Americans for not being consistent. Go look in the mirror!

[ Translation]


QUEBEC-GASOLINE TAXES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
An analysis of documents from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources proves beyond a doubt that Quebec drivers now pay 2.5 cents more per litre of gas, compared with November 1987. The reason is not the increase of 23 cents per gallon, which the Conservatives introduced. It isn't the escalator tax either. It is simply because the multinational oil companies failed to pass on the drop in the price of oil per barrel, which in November was selling for $26.20 and is now selling for $19.57.
My question is: Would the Deputy Prime Minister ask the directors of Petro-Canada to do its Quebec shareholders the courtesy of reducing the price per litre in Quebec by 2.5 cents, so that Quebecers will get a fair deal?


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for his question but I think he has his facts all wrong.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Jack Wendele Shields: You might listen and learn something.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Jack Wendele Shields: The prices that the hon. gentleman is talking about are the very stable gas prices in the Montreal area as compared to the volatile prices that have existed in Toronto and western Canada, where price wars have been going on for the past six or eight months.
If the hon. gentleman would look at it fairly, he would understand that the average does not come out properly because of the price wars in western Canada and the volatility in the Toronto market.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF PETROLEUM COMPANIES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary does not know what he is talking about. So I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Since all oil companies in Quebec seem to be in agreement not to lower the price of gasoline at the pump, while the price of crude oil has greatly decreased, and since there seems to be collusion among the various oil companies in Quebec to overcharge Quebec drivers 2.5 cents a litre, is the Minister prepared to ask his Department, which is responsible for antitrust cases, to investigate why Quebecers are unfairly treated?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, if there is a cartel and the companies are getting together to fix prices, they are committing a criminal offence. I would ask the Hon. Member to pass that
July 26, 1988

information over to the Director of Investigation Research of my Department who will certainly be interested in seeing that evidence, if the Hon. Member has any.
In the meantime, the Department has a group that monitors petroleum prices. If there is any evidence of collusion, or trying to fix prices, the Director of Investigation Research will certainly take action.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Unfortunately, the child care Bill that was tabled yesterday is as flawed as the Conservative child care strategy. For example, the Minister will know that the preamble to the Bill mentions the need to improve the availability, affordability, quality, and accessibility of child care services. Yet the Bill does not include these as national objectives.
We agree that standards are a provincial jurisdiction. However, why has the Government refused to establish national objectives for child care in the body of the legislation, with the requirement that the provinces and territories must adhere to these to qualify for federal funding? Is it because your restrictive funding mechanism makes it impossible to meet these objectives?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, no, that is not the case. If the Member looks at Bill C-144, she will find that the objective for availability is to increase subsidized spaces over the next seven years with 200,000 spaces. If she looks at affordability, she will find that the provinces that are spending below the national average and have less revenue than the national average will have more generous funding arrangements under this plan than the Canada Pension Plan or other cost shared arrangements.
When she talks about quality, she will find clearly that the provinces themselves, as well as in the negotiations we are having, want to increase the quality. We can build that into the federal-provincial agreements.
I appreciate her comment about the quality aspect to any arrangement relating to licensing being provincial jurisdiction.
If she looks at accessibility, there is an increase of 100 per cent in subsidized spaces in seven years. That will obviously increase accessibility.
The Government has responded exactly to those principles in the preamble.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT POSTPONE PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister talk about accessibility when an average of 30,000 new spaces a year that he talks about will not even meet the needs of Metro Toronto, much less the needs of two million working families across Canada? He should know from the research that has been done that the funding for of profit operations will not ensure quality.
Since the Government's child care strategy is destined to fail dismally in meeting Canada's need for child care and, if proceeded with, will set child care back across the country rather than establishing a program of which we can all be proud, will the Government hold back this Bill until after the next election and let Canadians have the final say?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, Mr. Speaker. If the Hon. Member looks at the very question she asks, she will know that their policy has been based on 1.4 million children needing day care. That has not been proven. They want a policy that will cost at least $11 billion a year. They want a policy in which parents do not have choice. They want a policy in which they will dictate to the provinces how to run provincial jurisdiction.


John Edward Broadbent: All not true.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: All true. We will pass this legislation and take it to the people. They will then decide.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION OF MEMBERS FROM THE GUATEMALA CONGRESS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of a delegation of Members from the Guatemala Congress.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APARTHEID
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the South African athletes who propose to participate in the Player's Tennis Tournament in my riding in August. In July, 1985, the Conservative Government put out a policy which can only be called racist because it backtracked on the Commonwealth Gleneagles Agreement on sporting contacts with South

July 26, 1988
Oral Questions
Africa, by condoning the participation of South African individuals in sporting events if they were not purporting to represent their country.
The Government knows well that in the real world these athletes do represent their country. Last night it was reported that the Minister of State for Amateur Sports was asking Tennis Canada to ask the athletes to withdraw voluntarily from the tournament. I ask the Government directly to change its 1985 policy and make it clear that South African individuals and teams are not welcome in Canada, and to take steps to ensure that these athletes will not participate in the Player's Tennis Tournament in August.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I believe the House is well aware of the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Prime Minister, and the Government on the system of apartheid in South Africa, and of the many steps we have taken in the last four years to show our abhorrence of that system. They are steps that were not taken by the predecessor Government which we never heard from in that context when it was in power.
With respect to the particular tennis question, our policy on sporting contacts with South Africa accords with the 1977 Gleneagles Agreement between the Commonwealth heads of Government, and the 1982 Code of Conduct adopted by the Commonwealth Games Federation in Brisbane.
In addition, the Secretary of State for External Affairs initiated a review of these policies several weeks ago. That review is under way now. Changes will be made that we are sure will more than suit what is needed in the near future.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: But if the Government really wants to prevent these South Africans from participating, why does it do so indirectly behind the scenes, as was reported last night? Why not go about it directly? Is the Government at last afraid of South Africa?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that question is so jejune, so feeble that it does not require any answer. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was Chairman of the Commonwealth Committee on this subject. The Prime Minister's record at the Commonwealth and other conferences has been outstanding in this area. I am not going to get disturbed or cross at such a weak-kneed suggestion.
[ Translation]


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Secretary of State Department and Official Languages. The Minister has just signed agreements to promote official languages with Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island. I would like to ask the Minister if he is prepared to sign similar agreements with other Canadian provinces, like Alberta, Ontario or even Quebec?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed negotiated and concluded agreements with Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan in an effective and favourable manner, I believe; these agreements will certainly benefit the francophone minorities. We are now negotiating other agreements, in particular a subsidiary agreement on community colleges with New Brunswick and an agreement on health and social services with Quebec. We are also holding discussions with the Government of Alberta. In the next few days, I will meet the Education Minister of that province and I am confident that by using the co-operative, dynamic, open-minded approach we used recently in other cases, we can negotiate an extremely satisfactory agreement with that province to provide real benefits, especially in the field of education, for francophones in that province.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed once again to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the selective application of the Gleneagles Agreement by this Government which allows two tennis players to come into the country because they are entrepreneurs, but prevents the provision of a visa to a black South African softball player who is not even here to play softball. Will this Government act, as it has so far failed to act, and implement the Gleneagles Agreement, with a complete ban of all involvement of Canadian athletes, in Canada or outside, with South African athletes, black or white?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, and repetition cannot change the facts, we have adopted and followed the Gleneagles policy. The difference between the tennis players and the other gentleman referred to by the Hon. Member is that one is an official representative and therefore comes clearly under the
July 26, 1988

policy, while the others are not official representatives of any sports body, nor have they any connection with the South African Government.
We will continue with our vigorous policy of opposition to apartheid in ways that are effective about the world and in the Commonwealth, as I have said just a few minutes ago. The Secretary of State has also initiated a further review of this situation to see what changes might be necessary in the particular regulations as they apply to sports. He is doing this in co-ordination with the Minister of State for Youth.


GLENEAGLES AGREEMENT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, this vigorous application of the Gleneagles Agreement has led to more South African athletes being admitted into Canada since this Government came to office than previously. The Government continues to apply the policy of the previous Government that allows certain athletes such as tennis players and golfers to come into the country as entrepreneurs, but excludes a South African softball player who came merely as an individual observer and not a representative. I ask the Minister again if this Government will now implement in its policy the entirety of the Gleneagles Agreement and ban access by all South African athletes to this country, as the world demands?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting at sometime if the hon. gentlemen could be factual in their questions. The suggestion in this question is that more South African athletes have been admitted to Canada, presumably to play at their particular sport, in the last four years than in the previous four years.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Three.


John Carnell Crosbie: He wants to narrow it to three. Let's have some facts from the hon. gentleman. I do not think what he alleges to be fact is fact. Our policy is clear. Our policy is in accordance with other Commonwealth countries. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is reviewing it now, and when he has finished his review we will see whether he thinks changes are needed or not.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence who has found an excellent election tool in the Department of National Defence.
The Minister and some of his colleagues were really grasping when they dashed out to Calgary last week to announce the building of 820 all-terrain troop carriers at a
Oral Questions
greatly inflated cost, and the company will not even begin to retool its plant until 1992. Two elections could be over in Canada by that time.
The damning thing about the Government's action was the ignoring of the tendering process on defence contracts in Canada. Why was no other company in Canada given the chance to bid on this contract? Why was a Request for Proposal not sent out to other potential bidders? And, simply, why was there no tender whatsoever on this whole $420 million defence contract? You are not protecting the taxpayers of this country.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if the Department of National Defence has become a good election vehicle for the Government, it is because it was ignored for 20 years by the Liberal Government of the time.
What we are doing is keeping a promise that was made to the men and women serving in Canada's Armed Forces to reequip the Armed Forces of Canada after 20 years of neglect.
The Canadian Forces already have over 100 of these vehicles. These vehicles are used by our allies with whom we would have to be working in Norway. They are used as well by our ally, the United States, in Alaska. No other existing vehicle is for sale in Canada which meets the requirements of the Canadian Forces. If we were to ask that some be designed, we would have to start from scratch at considerably greater cost. That would result in orphaning the existing vehicles which are compatible and interchangeable with allied equipment, and we would drive up the cost to the Canadian taxpayers. If that is what the Hon. Member is suggesting, let him say so directly.


COST OF VEHICLES
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, that is rather odd. Maybe the Minister could explain why he is paying almost triple the cost for the same vehicles he bought between 1984 and 1987? Why the greatly inflated cost if this was all so handy, with no added expenses?
The Minister is going to need vehicles for the militia training centres in Canada. The Government has suggested that it may go sole source for those purchases as well, which means no tendering. When is this Government going to stop ignoring the tendering system and put some integrity and fairness back into the defence purchasing of this country instead of using the same old slogans? The Minister stands up on his feet and uses his rhetoric instead of telling the taxpayers of Canada why their money is not being well spent under the tendering system for defence projects.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that it is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada that we should break this agreement with Canadian Foremost Ltd. of Calgary and say that the contracts should be given to somebody else? If that is the

July 26, 1988
Oral Questions
position of the Liberal Party, let it say so honestly and directly to the people of western Canada.
The Hon. Member is incorrect when he suggests there has been a tripling of the costs of these vehicles. The average cost of the vehicles purchased by the Department of National Defence was $140,000 in 1984 dollars. The vehicles we are contracting for now in 1988-89 dollars are about $170,000 a piece. The difference is the difference in the exchange rates and the inflation during that period.
This is a very good deal for the taxpayers of Canada. It is exceptionally good for the militia of Canada who have been neglected for so long and will finally be getting the equipment they need to do their job of serving the people of Canada.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Since 1984 the Conservative Government has been packing the National Parole Board with faithful Tory supporters, including former Tory MPs and former constituency assistants to Tory MPs. Now, however, the ultimate has happened. The Solicitor General has appointed his own executive assistant, Nancy Stableforth, to the board.
How can the Minister possibly justify this blatant pork-barrelling appointment of his own executive assistant to the National Parole Board?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, one of the things this Government has been trying to do since it came to power is to raise the quality of the appointments.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: I notice there is no criticism of the qualifications of this particular individual who had a very distinguished career as a lawyer in private practice. She has served the Public Service well, and I do not think a person should be disqualified for having worked for this particular Minister.


REQUEST THAT APPOINTMENT BE RESCINDED
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are becoming-


Mr. McDermid:: Whom would you appoint?


John Carnell Crosbie: What about Stephen, your little buddy? He was okay. What about the other guy who went to Ireland? He was all right. What was his name?


Mr. Mazankowski:: Dennis McDermott.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby has the floor.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that they are a little sensitive over there about this appointment.
Canadians are becoming increasingly fed up with the failure of our parole system and with the National Parole Board in particular. Given the appalling record of Tory patronage appointments to the Board and the public's loss of confidence in the parole system, will the Minister rescind immediately the appointment of his former executive assistant and faithful supporter, Nancy Stableforth, and bring in a new appointment process for the Parole Board, one that operates on the basis of merit and ability, not on faithful service to the Conservative Party of Canada?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I think that this Government has an excellent record of appointing people from all political Parties and all sectors of the Government as well as the private sector. If the Hon. Member has some problem or question with respect to the qualifications of this individual, instead of smearing people such as this in public he should come forward to tell me what is wrong with the qualifications of this particular person.


Mr. Riis:: Absolutely no experience!


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, when I speak to senior citizens in my riding they ask me if the free trade agreement is going to affect their pensions, whether it will affect their medicare, and whether it will affect our water.


Some Hon. Members:: Yes!


Alan Redway: I tell them absolutely not.


Jack Harris: Is this a question?


Sheila Maureen Copps: What are you asking a question for if you already know the answer?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question, please.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased today to hear that Liberal Senator van Roggen agrees with me. When the senior citizens in my riding pick up a Toronto newspaper day after day they see that all of these things are going to be wiped out.
I want to ask the Minister for International Trade-


Nelson Andrew Riis: He hasn't read it yet.
July 26, 1988


Alan Redway: -whether Senator van Roggen and I have this all wrong. Who is right, Mr. Minister?


John Carnell Crosbie: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: When am I going to be allowed to answer?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior.


Lloyd Axworthy: That's the best answer you've given all day, John.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand yesterday's edition of Hansard. In reply to a question I posed regarding the status of the Dene and Metis land claims in the Northwest Territories the Acting Prime Minister said as follows:
There are a couple of outstanding items still. These are being negotiated ... and those negotiations and discussions are continuing.
That is encouraging and reassuring news. I want to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development if he could clarify the nature of those continuing negotiations. Can he tell the House what steps he is taking to ensure that progress will continue?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the reply by the Acting Prime Minister yesterday is accurate. There are, as the Hon. Member knows, opportunities for clarification of the Dene-Metis claim. There was a negotiation which led to a negotiated AIP which should be signed.
The opportunity for clarification can be discussed and is being discussed by the Dene-Metis with officials. But I am prepared to sign the agreement in principle that was negotiated. I think that is something that is known to the Dene-Metis leadership. The clarification that may be necessary can be explained and explored by the officials, as it is being done now.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET REPRESENTATIVES OF CLAIMANTS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Dene and the Metis have accepted 90 per cent of the proposed agreement. On the remaining outstanding items on which
Business of the House
there is a difference of opinion they have asked for a meeting with the Minister in order to explore all possible options, leading to a possible settlement of this important claim.
Is the Minister prepared to meet with the Dene-Metis? When will that meeting take place? Will he keep the door open so that those remaining items can in fact be settled in a way that is just and equitable for the Dene and the Metis of the Northwest Territories?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the agreement in principle that was negotiated is just and fair to the Dene-Metis. It is just and fair to the Government and people of Canada. It is a just and fair agreement in principle.
The agreement in principle that has been negotiated is there. I am prepared to sign that negotiated agreement in principle.
If there is clarification that may be needed as to certain points, as I said before that clarification can be explored and examined by the Dene-Metis with officials prepared to clarify it for them at any time.
There have been negotiations which led to an agreement in principle. That agreement in principle was a negotiated, fair and just agreement in principle. I am prepared to sign that agreement in principle.


POINT OF ORDER
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to make a brief correction to the record.
A few minutes ago I had a question with regard to costs of the BB 206. I indicated that the simplest vehicle, which was the cargo variant of the BB 206, cost Canadians $140,000 in 1984. I was incorrect in the second figure I gave. The announced program costs allow for $175,000, not $170,000, in 1988-89 dollars for the same vehicle. Other variants, obviously, would cost different costs. But the difference is the difference in inflation and exchange rates.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions

July 26, 1988
Abortion
among the Parties. I believe Your Elonour would find agreement with the following consent order. I would say that some people have copies of this consent order since it was widely distributed. However, there is a change from what is in front of everybody which takes place in Clause 8.
I move:
That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders and usual practices of the House, the following procedures be in order with respect to proceedings on Government Business No. 36 (Motion respecting abortion):
1.	Any Member may give notice of an amendment to the main motion by filing such notice with the Clerk no later than 6 p.m. on Wednesday, July 27, 1988;
2.	The Speaker, in a manner similar to the practice at the report stage of Bills, will have power to select, group and determine the voting procedure for all such amendments, with his statement and ruling on such selection, grouping and voting (consistent with Part (8) of this Order) to be made to the House when the debate is first resumed on the main motion on Thursday, July 28, 1988;
3.	No amendment or sub-amendment to the main motion will be receivable or in order during debate on government business No. 36 except as provided for in parts (1) and (2) of this order;
4.	Debate on the main motion will be, following adoption of this order, the only order of business for the House today, until any Member present and wishing to speak in debate has spoken, after which time but no later than 6.00 a.m. Wednesday, July 27, 1988, the Speaker shall adjourn the debate and the House until 2.00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 27, 1988;
5.	The provision of part (4) of this order shall apply, mutatis mutandis, on Wednesday, July 27, 1988, at the end of which sitting the Speaker shall adjourn the debate and the House until 11 a.m., Thursday, July 28, 1988.
6.	No Member who has spoken in debate on the main motion before the Speaker's statement and ruling (as per part (2) of this order) may speak again subsequently in debate;
7.	Quorum may not be called during debate on government business No. 36, and no 10-minute periods of questions and comments will be provided for;
This clause is changed somewhat. It reads:
8.	On Thursday, July 28, 1988, following the Speaker's statement and ruling, (pursuant to part (2) of this order), the House will suspend its sitting for one hour, when the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of every amendment selected according to the groupings and voting procedures set out in the Speaker's statement and ruling, and to dispose of the main motion, following which the House shall stand adjourned until 2.00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 10, 1988.
Provided
(a)	That, if necessary, at the request of the Government, Mr. Speaker shall fix a time for the purpose of the giving of Royal Assent to any Bills that have not been given Royal Assent;
(b)	That after the giving of Royal Assent to any such Bills, the House shall stand adjourned to the time and day stated in this order;
(c)	That during any such adjournment of the House, the provisions of Standing Orders 5 and 68(3) and (4) shall apply; and
That when the House returns on Wednesday, August 10, 1988, or at an earlier date, except for the giving of Royal Assent, as the case may be, the provisions of the order of the House adopted on Monday, June 20, 1988, shall apply.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the order. Is the House in agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the order accepted. Motion agreed to.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Douglas Grinslade 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:: Before commencing debate, and I will recognize the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) in a moment, I believe that it is appropriate for the Chair to make the following comments. First, I want to reiterate that I have not only listened very carefully to the motion, but have given it as much careful consideration as I can in the few minutes available to me. I also want to say that the motion has been adopted by the House by consent.
As your humble servant, I am charged with doing everything that I can to make sure that the consent of the House is adhered to. However, I do point out that it is an unusual order, and I know that all Hon. Members, on the government side, in the Official Opposition, and in the New Democratic Party, will co-operate with the Speaker if, during the process of this debate I may have to call upon the House Leaders, at least under some circumstances, possibly to give the Chair some further guidance. I am quite sure that, in view of the consent that we have received in the House, the Speaker will be able to take us through this debate. If I need some help, I will be very quick to call for it.
July 26, 1988

We are now entering debate. I recognize the Hon. Minister of State.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to start off my remarks by thanking my colleagues opposite for their cooperation in coming up with the consent order which was just passed by the House. I believe that it will facilitate debate without restricting debate or the ability of Members to either put their comments on the record or vote as they wish. I am sure that all Members will co-operate with the spirit of the order, and if there are any glitches as we go along, they can be worked out.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling a motion that will open the debate in Parliament on a most sensitive issue, namely abortion.
In recent years, many Private Members' Bills and motions have dwelt on this important topic, and there was also a great deal of discussion during the hearings on the Constitution and the debate on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1981 and 1982. These discussions took place at a time when abortion in Canada was still subject to Section 251 of the Criminal Code.
Section 251 prescribed the conditions under which abortion could be practised. This section had been in effect since 1969.

On January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Section 251 of the Criminal Code on the basis that it offended the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Actually, this decision left a void in terms of the law of our land with respect to abortion. Some will argue that there should be no more requirement than the fact that the abortion be performed by a qualified medical practitioner. Others will argue that abortion should be restricted by law, and that is what this debate is all about. Abortion is a sensitive, moral issue which touches every one of us deeply. Viewpoints on the issue cut across social, economic, cultural, religious and political backgrounds. For that reason, we decided that we would take a sense of the House before we drafted legislation.
Furthermore, we decided that government Members would be free to vote as they wish. I will expand on that comment later. I want to deal, if I may, with the sense of the House. Our Government has many achievements to its credit, and two of them should be mentioned within the context of this debate. First of all, it is a willingness to tackle tough issues and, secondly, it is a dedication to parliamentary reform. By engaging in this debate, we are demonstrating our commitment to both.


An Hon. Member:: You have no guts.
Abortion


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Abortion is an issue which deserves to be debated in Parliament prior to the legislation being passed. Members should have the right to put their views on the record, for themselves, for their constituents, and as part of the input to provide it to the Cabinet and to the legislative drafters.
True parliamentary reform means that when issues such as abortion are raised, Governments recognize the value and input of every Member. Normally, that takes place within a caucus, from a government caucus to Cabinet. In this case, because of the nature of the subject, we are giving all Members of the House an opportunity for that input.
There are very, very few issues which have the depth and scope of the abortion issue and can therefore demand that attention. I submit that that is a further demonstration of our Government's commitment to parliamentary reform.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There are those who argue that we should present a Bill. That argument is there to be made, and I am sure that it will be made during the course of this debate.
We decided instead to take the sense of the House rather than proceeding immediately with legislation.

Initially, we tabled a motion overruling certain rules of debate and providing for a vote in the House on a motion with two amendments which reflected the tenets both of pro-choice and the moderate pro-life movement.
The Government caucus reached a consensus on this motion.
The motion was then transmitted to the Leaders of the Opposition in the House for presentation to their respective caucuses.
The motion was rejected by the Liberal caucus and the New Democratic Party caucus, without amendments being proposed.

Nevertheless, we placed our motion on the Order Paper for public scrutiny on May 25, 1988. We were pleased with the general reaction to our efforts. The public and the media recognized that we were dealing with a complex and sensitive moral issue. The motion rested on the Order Paper for some time, and we announced our intention to debate the procedural acceptability of the motion on Monday, July 11.
Over that preceding weekend I had an opportunity to review, in detail, the arguments of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), which they made on May 25, 1988.1 respect the views of those gentlemen. They have both been Members of Parliament for a long time, and it behooved me to pay attention to what they said. They argued that the motion that was on the Order Paper was faulty on a procedural basis: (a)

July 26, 1988
Abortion
because it restricted debate; (b) because it did not provide for amendments; and, (c) because it placed a multiplicity of questions before the House at one time. I was convinced that we could meet the first two arguments: (a) the motion could be amended; and, (b) we were providing more time for debate than is normally allowed on a Bill, because Members are only allowed a 20-minute speech during the first eight hours of debate on a Bill.
I did agree, after much reflection, that a procedural point could be made for the case that the House should not be presented with a multiplicity of questions without the unanimous consent of the House. If the opposition Parties had agreed on consent, there would have been no problem. However, in the absence of consent, which it was in their right to withhold, there was a problem.
We did not want a sensitive, moral and religious issue debated after an acrimonious procedural debate. We felt that we should be debating the issue and not the procedure. That is the reason that I decided not to proceed on Monday, July 11, 1988. It was not the happiest day of my life and it is not the happiest decision that I had to make, but that is the decision that was made and that is why it was made. So we regrouped and decided to go with this present motion.
The preamble refers to the Supreme Court decision and suggests that 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.
The scope of the legislation proposed by the motion is-

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 well-being; 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.

I understand that there was some discussion, after this motion was put on the Order Paper, by the opposition Parties.
I think it was helpful. I had some other remarks, but in view of the consent order I am not going to pursue them at this time. I would say that I understand that the motion has been criticized by both the leaders of the pro-choice side and the pro-life side. If that is the case, we have achieved our purpose, because we sought to favour neither side but to present a motion which could be the basis for debate. If both sides find fault, we have done our job. We did not seek to favour either side. We sought to frame a debate on an important issue. We sought a sense of the House.
The House will know, the public will know, that we have made certain changes to the normal rules. They are made on consent, and the debate will go forward in accordance with those rules.
I want to return to one point, if I may, and that is to point out that by moving by way of a motion we do provide every Member of the House with an opportunity to spend 20 minutes putting his or her view on the record. If we had proceeded by way of a Bill, only those Members speaking during the first eight hours of debate would have had the opportunity for a 20-minute speech.
I suggest that we have expanded the opportunity for debate.


An Hon. Member:: We could have consented to more time.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I want to deal with the tone of debate. The Members will know that a little over a year ago this House debated the controversial issue of capital punishment. At that time we suggested that each Member owed to society and to this House to debate that issue on as high a level as possible. That was not thought possible, and in fact some Members ridiculed the possibility. I suggest to you that the capital punishment debate was carried out without excessive acrimony and division, and I would suggest that the same guidelines apply to this debate. We owe it to each other, we owe it to the issue and we owe it to our constituents, to be both passionate and dispassionate in this debate-passionate as we present our point of view and dispassionate as we consider the viewpoints of others.
The time frame is set. We will extend hours to allow Members to speak, both tonight and tomorrow night. So the debate is set. I want to speak briefly, if I may, to the question of a free vote. Members on the government side will be free to vote as they wish on the motion and any amendments or subamendments. I think this is an issue, as was capital punishment, which demands or dictates a free vote. As I said before, it is a highly sensitive issue, a moral issue, a religious issue, and cuts across Party lines. Therefore, it is the essence of parliamentary reform when we say that we believe Members should be free to voice their own opinion as they speak and to vote as they wish on this issue.
In conclusion, I regret that my role in this debate does not permit me to speak to the issue, because I have very deeply
July 26, 1988

held convictions. However, in the final analysis, I am proud that we as a House of elected representatives are to debate this difficult issue at the end of a long session. I say to you that I am sure the House and its Members will be equal to the task.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks for the Official Opposition, I want to indicate right at the outset that we have decided that for our Party this will also be regarded as a free vote. It was an option that we had reserved in the expectation that the Government might propose a very one-sided, extreme motion which we would want to deal with as a Party. One cannot characterize the motion before us as extreme other than to say that it is extremely vague, to the point of being meaningless.
I have something to say about that but I want, first, to respond to the Minister's lecture on procedure. I think Canadians ought to note that absolutely nothing was said by the Minister on the subject of abortion.

All we had was a lecture on procedure. Personally, my conclusion is that no resolution will be forthcoming as a result of the motion that is before the House for the rest of this week.
I expect, despite the efforts of individual Members of the House to get a consensus one way or another, that a resolution, with or without amendments, will be rejected by a majority of the House. And I want to point out that the Government is to blame for this procedure.
If the Government had tabled a Bill, we could have come out of this with some kind of legislation.

I think the failure of the Government to show leadership on what Members opposite delight in characterizing as a fundamental issue, an important moral issue, is going to result in a failure to have legislation. While Members opposite may want to go into the election, as the Minister said, saying, "We have tackled the tough issues", and that was his expression, I ask Canadians to notice, and I am making a prediction here, that there will be no result of this debate. There will be no legislation. The Government will have produced an abortion environment by default. We will have no legislation governing abortion at all.
While Members opposite will want to blame anyone but themselves, the fault for such a result is their own. They are taking sides in this debate by failing to show leadership, by failing to bring forward legislation.
Nearly six months ago, on January 28, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that Section 251 of the Criminal Code which regulated abortion in Canada violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They struck Section 251 down. In so doing, they invalidated a law which had been on the statute books of our country for nearly 20 years. The law was introduced by the man who is the Leader of our Party in the House of Commons, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner). That invalidated law, when it was introduced,
Abortion
was regarded as a better social alternative to the then existing situation.
I want to talk for a moment about that situation because it may be relevant again. There are Members who are proposing that we move to a situation in which virtually all abortions are illegal. What I would like to say to those Members is that this is not a new alternative. I invite them to look back at the situation that existed before the important reform introduced in 1969 by the man who is now the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons. That provision, and ironically it is still in the Criminal Code although of course it was amended in 1969, provides simply that everyone who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, and I am summarizing here, or who uses any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. That is the law that was replaced by Section 251.
I think there are a lot of us here, and a lot of Canadians across the country, who will remember why the reform was important and what we achieved by that reform. There are those of us who will remember the humiliation and danger that Canadian women were subject to under the legislative regime that existed until 1969 when the attempt to obtain any abortion was a criminal act. Low standards of health, poor medical facilities and unqualified practitioners were the order of the day for women who were driven by circumstances to decide for themselves that an abortion was required.
For the last 20 years I think we have been relatively well served by the law that was introduced in 1969. I recall this because I know it is fashionable to criticize Section 251, and I wanted to remind Hon Members that that law, when it was brought in, was a great humanitarian reform and was much appreciated. It was supported by the majority of the House, by Members from all Parties, made a lot of sense, and on top of that, it worked. When it was discredited and rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada, it was on the basis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I am going to talk about that in a moment, but it could have been rejected on another very important ground. It could have been rejected because, after 20 years of living with it, it no longer was working. I know there are those who say, let's bring back Section 251. After all, the Leader of the Official Opposition brought it forward and it worked. It worked for a time but it stopped working several years ago. It stopped working in some important respects of which I want to remind Members now, although I think perhaps all Members are aware of them.
In the first place, the statute relied on the following expression of the criterion, that the pregnancy or the continuation of the pregnancy should be, and I quote, "likely to endanger the life or health of the woman". No expression in the Criminal Code got kicked around more than the expression "likely to endanger life or health". In every hospital and in every doctor's office in our country it had a different meaning.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
You cannot have criminal law that depends on a statute that imposes a penalty and has a definition that is that vague. As I say, it worked at the beginning, but on that count alone, Section 251 needed to be replaced.
There was another problem with Section 251, and that was that even when an abortion was authorized or would have been authorized, in many parts of Canada there was no procedure for a woman to have a lawful abortion pursuant to Section 251 of the Criminal Code. Whole provinces had excused themselves from the application of Section 251. That is unacceptable in a country as broad and wide as Canada with its diverse regions. If the Criminal Code is to be respected, if women are to be put through a procedure and come out entitled to an abortion, that service has to be available. Otherwise, there is no point in saying that there is a law on the books with which we should try to comply.
My third observation about Section 251 is that when an abortion was not justified and when an abortionist who performed an abortion was charged with a violation of Section 251, juries in various parts of Canada would not convict. There were cases of judges in effect telling the juries that they had no alternative but to convict the abortionists for the offences that had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt before the courts, and the juries refused to convict. That is obviously another important shortcoming in the legislation.
We already know about the pre-1969 situation, a tough criminalization of all abortions. We also know about the problems of living with Section 251, whether or not we had a Canadian Charter of Rights. It is time for us as a Parliament to deal with the issue. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case that went before it, provided us with the opportunity that was needed to deal with the question of abortion under the law of Canada.
I would like to turn now to the resolution introduced by a Government which is determined to get the credit for tackling the tough issues of our day. The Supreme Court of Canada made its judgment on January 28. On January 29, my Leader was up on his feet in this place making four points. In particular, he demanded that the Government act with urgency to take up the challenge the Supreme Court of Canada had put by introducing legislation which would be valid.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), who has not had the courage to speak in this debate and who, to my astonishment, was not the first speaker for the Government, rose on January 29 to say that we have responsibilities. I do not want to read the whole tortured paragraph, but he concluded by saying that we will be dealing with this matter on an urgent basis.
For six months we have had nothing of substance from the Government on the commitment that was made by the Minister of Justice the day after the Supreme Court made its decision. We still do not have anything from this Government
in the way of leadership or in the way of legislation. The Government is revelling in its decision not to take a position on this important issue.
I would like to deal with one particular government commitment on the subject. On January 29, my Leader was persistent. He wanted to be certain that the Government would not throw out the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by introducing an abortion law validated by a notwithstanding clause under the Constitution, making it apply in spite of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He said:
Can I have a guarantee from the Minister of Justice that his Government will rule out using the non obstante clause to get around the Supreme Court of Canada decision?
What did the Minister of Justice say in answer on the same day? He said:
What I can tell the right hon. gentleman is that I do not contemplate the use of the non obstante clause on the part of the Government with respect to this issue.
A funny thing happened in the last six months. Even from that very minimal commitment, the Government has backed away. The resolution brought before us does require a non obstante clause in order to be translated into legislation, at least that is the way it appears to me. I will show how it does in a moment. The Government has indicated that there are no holds barred on the debate, so that this commitment made on January 29 is thrown out of the window.
I would like to turn now to the resolution. The resolution divides a pregnancy into two periods. In the latter period, the consent and authorization of two doctors is required, and I will talk about that later. During the earlier stage of pregnancy, it is provided in the Government's resolution that a qualified medical practitioner must be of the opinion that the continuation of the pregnancy of a woman would or would be likely to threaten her physical or mental well-being. In other words, if a woman wants an abortion, according to this resolution she still has to have a doctor agree that a continuation of the pregnancy would or would likely threaten her physical or mental wellbeing. That is precondition on her right to an abortion as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. I think the only way that condition can be imposed is by having the Government propose to violate what the Minister of Justice said on January 29 by introducing a notwithstanding clause.
I will turn now to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of Madam Justice Bertha Wilson quotes the judgment of the Chief Justice which was concurred in by Mr. Justice Lamer. Three of the members of the Supreme Court of Canada, a majority of those who made the decision, are of the view that legislation would be invalid and would violate the Charter which based its decision on "criteria entirely unrelated to the pregnant woman's priorities and aspirations". That was a portion of the Chief Justice's judgment which was quoted with approval by Madam Justice Bertha Wilson. This means that the woman herself decides. Madam Justice Bertha Wilson went to on to say that Section
July 26, 1988

251 violates a woman's right to liberty by deciding for her something that she has the right to decide for herself.
What have we gotten from the Government? I understand that this resolution has been put forward as a middle position. A pro-life position would lie to one side and a pro-choice position would lie to the other. Elowever, this resolution in itself can only be translated into legislation if a notwithstanding clause is introduced. That makes this resolution unacceptable to those of us who agreed with the Minister of Justice six months ago when he said that it was important that we not put aside the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the sake of this abortion issue.
I have other difficulties with the resolution as well.


An Hon. Member:: What would you suggest?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I will make a suggestion. The first thing I would suggest is that if we want to put forward a middle position which I personally would support, it would be a position in which a woman's rights as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada are recognized in the early period of a pregnancy and the rights of the foetus are given recognition in balance with the woman's rights in the later portion of a pregnancy. That should be put forward in a resolution that purports to be in the middle of the two extremes.
The Minister rejoiced and claimed credit for having brought forward a resolution that both the pro-life and pro-choice people, as he put it, rejected. I have news for him. He has a resolution which not only the two extremes but the people in the middle as well reject because it does not respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as interpreted by the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision.
The resolution has many other problems, and I want to go over some of them. I mentioned earlier the difficulty with the expression "life and health" under Section 251. This resolution has the same difficult expressions. It talks about the physical or mental well-being of a woman. What is meant by that? What type of precision will be attached to that? Later it talks about the woman's life or health, again the same words that appear in the discredited Section 251. What is that supposed to mean? I submit that the Government owes the Canadian people and this Parliament more than a resolution as ambiguous, difficult, and self-contradictory as that.
I predict, as I said a moment ago, that there will be a lot of conflicting amendments. We wish the Speaker well in trying to put them in order and will co-operate with him. More will be rejected than will be accepted. I predict, although it is not my intention, that the resolution will be defeated. I am hoping that there will be some kind of resolution for which I can vote. It will be up to the Government to bring in legislation.
We are now in the fourth year of the mandate of a very discredited Government and it will be very difficult for the
Abortion
Government to bring forward legislation which will be taken seriously and addressed by this House. However, from what the Government has said about the subject of abortion and about this resolution I predict that nothing will be done.
I am very critical of a government decision and an undoubted government policy which will lead to having no abortion law in effect in Canada at all. Public opinion will be extremely polarized, and in the coming election, abortion, which is not a partisan issue, may, in the result, have far more attention than some of the other issues in which there is a partisan aspect involved and on which it is very important that Canadians speak and express themselves in choosing the next government.
I will not be introducing any amendments myself. I have indicated the areas with which I am dissatisfied, but I do not want to add to the very low credibility of this resolution by suggesting that merely amending it will make it okay.
I want to talk for a moment about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sometimes people think of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, after all, is only six or seven years old, as a fringe or frill produced by a country which lived for 100 years without it. It is thought of as sort of a fringe benefit of having been here and having been governed by the rule of law for such a long time.
I want to emphasize how important I think the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, particularly in the context of a country which has evolved tremendously over the last 100 years and has become far more complex than anyone might have realized in the mix we have achieved. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in its short life, is becoming a road map for how Canadian society is going to hold together, how a multicultural, pluralistic society with very diverse values is going to be able to survive and become ever stronger.
It is a trite observation that a multicultural and pluralistic society presents to the Canadian people a variety of customs and values. It is a part of Canadian political life to recognize this essential fabric of Canada and, indeed, to celebrate our variety and diversity. It is enriching to experience variety in life. Very often in the great variety of Canadian life differing values fit together and we tend to enjoy and celebrate the fact that within our great diversity there is a tremendous amount of positive similarity and compatibility. We do this by noting that in all the human societies and cultures which make up Canada there are basic shared values, even in our variety.
From the point of view of the members of any particular cultural group there is a great deal of satisfaction in bringing their values into the larger Canadian society. We have watched multiculturalism as a policy evolve. We encouraged groups to express and develop within their groups, their cultures and their values and have moved to the point where the greatest pleasure of a minority cultural community in our country comes from presenting its values to the whole of Canadian society and seeing the values of the group resonating, finding favour, being understood, and being appreciated by fellow Canadians.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
More and more we try to develop opportunities for taking the values of particular groups to the larger Canadian community. We think of each of these efforts as a contribution by a cultural community to Canada as a whole. This applies to a food which a cultural community brings into Canada which Canadians enjoy and buy, as well as to a moral precept which comes from a community such as respect for plant life and animal life, greater respect for the aged, methods of raising children, or different ideas for relationships between spouses. These are all enriching Canada, and individual communities enjoy bringing these ideas forward and sharing them.
I do not think I trivialize the debate by putting this as the context within which I want to talk about the very fundamental values on which our ideas about life, death, and abortion are based. I think I am justified in talking about those important values in the same context as the pluralistic other values that exist in the diverse Canadian society.
Abortion is one of the fundamental issues that exist in the diverse Canadian society. Abortion is one of the fundamental issues that relates to the meaning and value of human life. Merely saying this does not make it clear how the criminal law should treat it.
Some religions offer a categorical approach. The Catholic view, as I understand it, is that life begins at the moment of conception and that abortions are morally wrong and should not be condoned. I can say, as a Canadian of the Jewish faith, that that is also the view of orthodox Judaism.
It is the moral responsibility of believers in these religions to carry their message, not only to members of their community but to members of the world. If we have a way in our community, whether Catholic, Jewish or whatever, of looking at the world, it is part of an understanding of Canadian life and also a religious commitment to bring that value forward, to explain it to people, to try to earn respect for it, to try to have our ideas and values adopted and spread.
It is the moral responsibility of believers to carry their message to the world. However, if this debate on abortion, which has been raging for six months and even longer, shows anything it is that that view of abortion is not a consensus view. It is a view held by many Canadians, but not a view totally shared across Canadian society. That reminds us of all the views of Canadian communities which are not always compatible. Conflicts develop among values. While we prefer in Canada to emphasize the positive, we must also deal with the fact of values in our society which are not compatible.
I want to suggest in all seriousness that it does not strengthen a pluralistic society to entrench or enshrine one group's morality in the law of the country, unless it has the broadest possible consensus. To take a value of a group, however large, or of a number of groups, however numerous those groups are, and insert it in the criminal law of our country is not a way of strengthening a pluralistic society.
In my opinion, this is where the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms comes in. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms takes a very fundamental view about the individual in Canadian society and that view, which is part of our law, settles at a fundamental level the issues on which our laws and practices can be founded.
At the highest level of our judicial system, the right of a woman to determine her own priorities and aspirations in relation to a pregnancy in the early period has been recognized, not by one judge, but in one way and another by a majority of judges who spoke. In the later stages of a pregnancy the responsibility of society is recognized to legislate in the interests of the foetus.
I want to call on the Government to bring in legislation that reflects this decision based on the Charter of Rights. It has failed the Charter and it has failed the Canadian people in not doing so.
As I indicated, the only way in which the resolution before us could be validated, or in which more onerous pre-obligations on a woman's right as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada could be validated, would be to use the notwithstanding clause which is enabled by Section 33 of the Constitution and thereby put aside Charter guarantees.
For all the reasons I have given about the viability of a pluralistic society, about the need and our interest in strengthening our pluralistic society, I would urge those who oppose this fundamental freedom not to seek to impose their view through legislation. Certainly, their ideas should be put forward. Certainly, their ideas should be explained. They should seek to convince Canadians of their point of view, but to enshrine a position in legislation in my submission is to diminish the viability of the pluralistic society which is Canada.
A parliamentary debate on abortion in a multicultural society should not be an argument about which conception of life is right, about when life really begins, and about what the consequences should be of that determination. Such a debate would be important and valuable, but it would be theological or philosophical. We would not be debating an issue which could be settled by the will of the majority. That is the kind of issue that we debate in Parliament. They are issues that can be settled by the will of a majority.
When we want to talk about a theological or philosophical issue, we must recognize that truth does not depend for its validity on the number of people who proclaim it. Therefore, the truth of the question of life is not an issue to be settled by parliamentary debate. We are not here to determine the truth by relying on the will of the majority. What we are here to settle is how we should live together as Canadians with an issue on which there is no broad consensus, on which there are those whose morality opposes abortion on one side of the debate but others whose morality opposes compelling a woman under any circumstances to carry and bear an unwanted or
July 26, 1988

unloved child. I think that is the issue and the basis and the decision-making process that should be exercised in this place.
When we talk about the conflict which exists on the fundamental question of abortion, it is often forgotten that right across the board, wherever a group or individual stands on the question of abortion, there is much common ground among all participants. No one values an abortion. No one considers it to be a good or desirable alternative. Abortion is undesirable. What we all recognize on all sides of the debate is that abortions can be substantially reduced and should be substantially reduced because I believe there is the national will to reduce them.
Everyone recognizes that abortions can be avoided in almost every case by better sex education. When I speak of better sex education, I am thinking about parts of our country even having some sex education. There are many parts of Canada where there is none. There must be a national will to change that because that is the method of reducing what everyone recognizes as being undesirable, namely, the number of abortions.
They can be reduced by better planning. They can be reduced by a greater sense of responsibility on the part of women and on the part of men in their individual sex lives. They can be reduced by improved programs for pregnant women. They can be reduced by improved programs for new babies and by enlightened adoption policies.
We can take steps in this country and show leadership in this place to make women feel more comfortable with their pregnancy, more comfortable with the idea of bearing a child. We can assist them to have healthier children. We can do more on this than we have in the past.
I regret that this debate is not seized by the Government as an opportunity to bring forward a policy which would reduce abortions, a policy which would cover some of the bases I just described.

This Government has failed to table concrete measures for debate in the House, measures that it is in a position to promote, to reduce the number of abortions in our society. Personally, I regret that the Government has failed to act and has failed to draft a policy to reduce the number of abortions with the exception of those allowed under the Criminal Code.

We should all fight against abortion. I think all Canadians know that a foetus cannot be regarded the way tonsils or gallstones are regarded. There are greater implications of which all Canadians are aware. What is required is a government commitment to do something about it, a commitment which has not been expressed in this place. There must be an encouragement for provincial Governments in their responsibilities which has not been given by this Government.
Abortion
I conclude by observing for myself that while I would like to see legislation brought in along the lines that I have described,
I would not be able to vote for the resolution before us in its present form. I indicated at the outset and want to reiterate that this is a free vote. Members of our caucus will be voting without the whip being imposed. I know that many of my colleagues are looking forward to participating in the debate. I regret very much the failure of the Government to participate in the debate on the substance of the issue of abortion.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: I suppose it is with some trepidation, Mr. Speaker, that I rise to speak to this resolution. I think the danger in front of the Canadian people today is the fact that they think we are dealing with an abortion issue. That is sheer hypocrisy. What we have in front of us is a resolution. We do not have any legislation. This resolution is particularly vague. It talks about the early stages of a pregnancy when an abortion would be allowed and the later stages when there would be more restrictions. We do not know what the stages are. Are we supposed to make a decision about the stage at which a child is viable? What is it we are supposed to be dealing with?
We heard the Minister say after the Supreme Court decision that it was now time for leadership, that there was an urgency to bring forward legislation. Six months have passed without any legislation, and I think it is really important we recognize that the number of abortions in Canada have not increased. We have to look at what is in front of us and what this Parliament is going to do. We know this Parliament is sitting in its last stages. We know it can only go for another year at most and probably not. We know that whatever the resolution of this marathon debate we are entering into today, it will certainly not bring forward any legislation.
I think it is sheer hypocrisy of the Government to pretend it is doing something when it knows it will be another Parliament that will have to deal with it. I really take exception to that because if we as politicians want to reduce the amount of cynicism about politics in our country today, we have to be accountable and upright with the people. That is not what we are doing today with this resolution.
The Supreme Court has made the decision that it will hear the Borowski case in another three months. That will be a decision which will certainly affect what kind of legislation, if any, will be brought forward. It seems to me that is just another reason this resolution should not be in front of the House today. I think the crass hyprocrisy of the Government is something the people of Canada have to be aware of.
It is not the case that we are afraid to deal with any legislation. If the Government wants to bring a Bill before us, we will deal with it and decide whether it is good, bad or indifferent, proposing or not proposing amendments. What we are being asked to do here is to put forward amendments on a resolution that is vague. We do not know when those early

July 26, 1988
Abortion
stages are. That is not right. It is crassly political. The Government is pretending it is doing something when in fact it is doing absolutely nothing.
As far as the New Democratic Party is concerned, we have taken the position for a very long time that there should be a choice. That does not mean that the New Democratic Party is pro-abortion. What we are saying is that women should have some rights to choose. People who feel very strongly that abortion is wrong and would like to see the number of abortions reduced are the ones who should be dealing with public policy as our Party has been doing for a very long time. I think women have to have access to services. I do not know any woman who has lightly made the decision to have an abortion, and as a public health nurse I have dealt with many. It has never been an easy decision. Very often, if there were other alternatives, they would decide not to have an abortion.
We do not have child care, we very often treat women as sex objects and refuse to put services forward, and then have the gall to say they have a choice. Very often they do not have a choice. The New Democratic Party would like to see real choices for women.
I have heard for a long time many people talk about the fact that we do not value children, and we do not value children in our society. Certainly, this Government, which has put extra tax measures on families is not valuing children. We examined a reform Bill last week that actually increased the taxes on families, with two children rather than on a couple with no children. What kind of hypocrisy is that? If we really want to talk about a loving and compassionate society, we have to start putting in services to prevent the need for our women to make a decision to have an abortion. What has happened with the family planning programs? One-third of its funding was cut by this Government.
How can the Government want to have a more restrictive law and at the same time cut back on family planning? I think it is important that we look at the realities of some of the countries where there is liberalized abortion laws. Norway and Sweden made it compulsory to increase the education in sexuality in all the schools, and they found there was a dramatic reduction in the abortion rate in those countries. One country I know of which has rigid abortion laws is Brazil. It is totally illegal to have an abortion in Brazil, but there are over one million illegal abortions taking place in one year. There were 100,000 maternal deaths and over 10,000 abnormalities because of unsuccessful abortions.
When we talk about our ability to implement these laws, let us be realistic about it. I know there are a lot of people in this House who feel very powerful because they are going to be very rigid about this legislation. They are going to keep these women in line. They will force these women to carry the children they are unable to care for. I think it is really important to look at the numbers of women who are battered in our society. We know for a fact about one in eight women are battered. I would like to hear those same people talk about
services for those women. People who are afraid to put in a comprehensive child care program are saying they want to see a very rigid law on abortion. Those are the kinds of things we want to talk about if we want to reduce the number of abortions. I certainly do not accept the fact that by putting in rigid laws, or no laws at all and pretending something is going to be done, is an effective way to deal with the problem.
I think many of us in this House have looked at the kind of things that have happened and have decided that this is really a moral issue.

One hundred years ago, the Catholic Church declared that in the case of a baby of the male sex, abortion was allowed at 40 weeks of gestation and in the case of a baby of the female sex, after 80 days. Which means that there has been a lot of discussion on the subject. For years, people speculated on sex and age, but the only real issue that must be dealt with is: How can we reduce the number of abortions in our society? That is the only sensible question that has been asked here in the House. The next question is, what measures must be taken until a Bill is forthcoming?

The kinds of policies we need are positive public policies. We do not need policies that are more restrictive, that really do force decisions on people, that make women become again the victims of the back alleys. We must recognize that our society has had literally no effective law concerning abortion in the last six months. The Province of Quebec has not implemented it since 1976. Yet I hear people saying there is a terrible urgency, that we really have to deal with this issue very quickly, that it is a very chaotic situation we are in. I think that is an irresponsible kind of approach to this subject. It is irresponsible because it is attempting to fear monger.
I do not think that is what we want. We as a Party were quite willing to deal with this subject in a comprehensive way and be responsible and accountable	to	the	Canadian	people.We have not had the opportunity	to	do	so in this	House
because the Minister speaks out of one side of his mouth saying it is urgent that we have some kind of law and at the same time brings forward only a resolution. As my Leader said last week, we had a three-headed monster in front of us and now we have a one-headed monster in front of us. It is non-specific. The motion does not give us any sense of where we are going.As we look at it we recognize that	we	certainly do not wantthat to continue in the country. We	do	not want	to see
Canadians thinking that they are getting action and not getting it. That very hypocrisy is something that is an affront to the House of Commons.
As Members of Parliament we have been asked to be accountable. We have been asked to be responsible. Instead of that what we get is a Gallup poll in the House of Commons. I
July 26, 1988

do not think that that is the kind of thing that Canadians are looking for.
I have heard a great deal of discussion among members of the public ever since the Supreme Court decision came down. After the decision came down there was a great deal of speculation with respect to what would happen. What we saw was a variety of types of services delivered across the country.
As a woman, as a New Democrat, I would like to see the same type of services available to all Canadian women so that they will be able to have equal access. I would also like to see them have the types of services that would enable them to make a choice decision. It would be very nice if we knew that women were not any longer earning 64 cents for every $1 that a man earns. It would be very nice if we knew that there was safe, quality child care available for every woman who has a child. It would be very nice if we knew that women had access to health services where they could have pap tests and mammary examinations, as well as contraceptive information, all easily accessible to them. That is not easily accessible in the country right now.
It would also be very nice if we saw all our mother led families in adequate housing and living above the poverty line. When I hear people telling me that they are worried about the children in the country, and I realize that 40 per cent of the clients of the soup kitchens in the City of Toronto are children, I say it is a scandal and a disgrace. For us to pretend that children are a priority to us is absolute nonsense.
If we really want to start treating each other as dignified human beings with quality care, with relationships of quality, if we want to look at life and value it in the true sense of the word, then what we should be looking at is public policies that give us the ability to give each person a sense of dignity. It would give each person the ability to have access to education, nutrition, and the types of things we think are so important. It is certainly not the type of thing that we need to do by having a Gallup poll conducted in the House of Commons to decide whether or not we will have legislation, knowing very well that this Parliament will never implement any.
If we were being honest and if the Government felt very strongly that there was a vacuum which needed some legislation to fill it, then it would have brought legislation forward. Because it cannot come to any consensus in its own caucus, what it has really done is say: "We will use the House of Commons to conduct a Gallup poll".
If Members of Government want some Gallup poll information, I have some here dated April 13. At that time 69 per cent of people thought that the decision whether to have an abortion or not should rest with the woman in consultation with her physician. If the Government wants the results of Gallup, we can give it to it without it bringing it to the House of Commons.
I can probably find other figures which are far different from that. The Government can pick out whichever ones it
Abortion
wishes. But, please, Mr. Speaker, do not use the Members of the House of Commons to do this Gallup polling. The Government is here to govern. It is not here just to try out a resolution. It is disgraceful that what we are being asked to do right now is to pretend that we are doing something that will never happen in this House of Commons.
We know that in the next election, sure, there will be a lot of discussion. But I will be very comfortable to go out on the campaign trail to say: "You thought, maybe, that the Government was doing something about this question, but it was doing absolutely nothing. What it did was try to raise the expectations of Canadians about how seriously it was taking this subject and what it was really doing was making a sham of it". That is totally unacceptable. It is the kind of thing that as New Democrats we resent very much. I think that the women of Canada should resent it as well.
They do not know into which crack they have to fall since at this point in time there has not been a great deal of chaos. Services are being delivered. The number of abortions has not increased. The ability for Canadian women to make responsible decisions is there. The ability for our medical profession to deliver adequate care is there. Those are the types of decisions that are being made now. There is not that terrible vacuum that some Members are referring to which claims that there is a chaotic society. We are not living in chaos. If we really do care about what the future of this country will be, we will start to look at comprehensive, public policy that respects the dignity of men, women, and children.
That is the type of law that I would like to see in front of the House. That is the type of society in which I would like to live. I hope that the rest of Canadians feel that way. I think that after the next election we will find that they do.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, as all of us are fully aware, on January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Section 251 of the Criminal Code which governs abortion.
January 28 was the day on which the sanctity of human life was decreed to be of inferior value to personal convenience. The Supreme Court judgment also forced people to wake up from the mistaken notion that righteousness automatically rules. We have been startled to see that darkness prevails when good people do nothing.
If the Supreme Court judgment has shocked us into recognizing that if we want to influence the laws and rules governing our society, we who believe in the sanctity of life of the unborn have to be in the fight and learn to fight smart, then perhaps it has served a useful purpose. It also reminds us not to rely solely on legislation to solve our problems. Legislation may control actions but it does not change attitudes. Influencing public opinion, changing hearts, are part of the fight as well.
While striking down Section 251 of the Criminal Code dramatically illustrates the new power of the courts under the

July 26, 1988
Abortion
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it by no means prevents Parliament from using its criminal law to restrict abortion. If this were the case, it would be all too convenient for elected representatives to avoid the controversial issue of abortion by insisting their hands are tied by the Supreme Court pronouncement.
The question as to whether an unborn child is a human being has been pondered, it has been considered, it has been discussed, and the decision arrived at by the medical profession and others is, yes, the unborn child is indeed a human being from the time of conception.
If this is a human life, then we are faced with a question, one that says yes or no to the entire abortion question. Should we give legal protection under the law to every human in this nation from the beginning of his or her life until each individual's natural death, or should we discriminate fatally under the law against entire classes of living humans?
For two millennia in our western culture, written into our Constitutions, specifically protected by our laws, and deeply imprinted in the hearts of all men and women, there has existed the absolute value of honouring and protecting the right of each human to live. This has been an inalienable and unequivocal right. The only exception has been that of balancing a life for a life in certain situations, or by due process of law.
Never in modern times, except by a small group of physicians in Hitler's Germany, and by Stalin in Russia, has a price-tag of economic or social usefulness been placed on an individual human life as the price of its continued existence. Never in modern times, except by physicians in Hitler's Germany, has a certain physical perfection been required as a condition necessary for the condition of that life. Never in modern times, has a state granted to a citizen the absolute legal right to have another killed in order to solve her own personal, social or economic problem. Yet, if this is a human life, the Canadian Supreme Court decision, as well as the permissive abortion laws in other countries do all of the above. They represent a complete aboutface, a total rejection of one of the core values of western man and an acceptance of a new ethic in which life is only of relative value. No longer will everyone have a right to live simply because he or she exists. Man will now be allowed to exist only if he measures up to certain standards of independence, physical perfection, or utilitarian usefulness to others. This is a momentous change that strikes at the very root of western civilization.
Last year more than 60,000 unborn babies were legally "terminated" in Canadian hospitals. This means destroyed for no offence at all. Abortion is an extreme form of child abuse inside the womb. It violently destroys a unique young human being. Some people claim that abortion is a woman's right. What is more, they insist that we should all be forced to pay for it with our taxes. They call themselves "pro-choice". There
is no freedom of choice for a child destroyed by abortion. Its every instinct is to live. As the pro-choice people use the phrase, a women's right to choose is really a right to destroy life.
Can anyone honestly claim this right? If it is wrong to kill timber rattlesnakes in some countries, how can it be all right to destroy helpless human beings? Don't we have a right to oppose this? All human life, before and after birth, has a right to protection; not just the strong, the whole, the well connected, but also the weak, the handicapped, and the unwanted.
You do not solve human problems, Mr. Speaker, by destroying human life. To place the issue of human abortion into its proper context, we must first know why abortions are being performed. Today there are only two primary medical indications for abortion: cancer of the cervix and womb and ectopic pregnancy. If the cancer is detected early in pregnancy, treatment of the mother would likely cause the loss of her unborn child. The other is with regard to ectopic pregnancy. In this situation, the child is developing in the Fallopian tubes instead of the womb. In this case, the unborn child would have to be removed to protect the life of the mother.
Such cases represent such a small number of actual abortions it becomes evident that the vast majority of Canada's approximately 60,000 yearly abortions cannot properly be called therapeutic. Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be justified in a free and democratic society.
In 1969, when the Criminal Code was amended to permit abortion under certain therapeutic circumstances, the intent was to maintain the basic rights of the unborn child while at the same time set reasonable limits to allow for therapeutic abortion in cases such as I have mentioned.
Since that time we have seen an increasing abuse of this law, to the point that we now have a situation in which abortion in Canada is undertaken primarily for socio-economic reasons. The clear intent is no longer to heal but to destroy the unborn child because he or she is supposedly unwanted and inconvenient. The wording in the Criminal Code addressed the seriousness of this act when it could not be justified on therapeutic grounds by a select committee of physicians.
Section 251(1) of the Criminal Code states:
Everyone who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person ... uses any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence ...
It is evident that Members of Parliament never intended to provide a loophole to legalize abortion on demand and thus remove all lawful protection from the unborn child.
Section 15(1) of the Charter prohibits discrimination based on age, and yet we continue to destroy 60,000 unborn babies every year for reasons of convenience. Is this not discrimination on the basis of age, because they are so young and not yet
July 26, 1988

able to express themselves fully? Scientifically, the process of birth is simply a change in residence for one who has already been living and interacting with his or her protective environment for nine long months.
The fact is that each new human life begins at conception and proceeds through stages identified as embryo, foetus, infant, child, adolescent, and adult. The Charter requires that every human being from the very young to the very old, especially the helpless and defenceless, must be afforded equal protection. Anyone whose rights or freedoms as guaranteed by the Charter have been infringed on or denied may apply to a court to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
Obviously the Charter made these provisions to assure that those who felt their rights being denied were given a fair hearing. Further to this guarantee of the right to life, Section 12 states:
Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual
treatment or punishment.
Today we constantly see new evidence that points to the pain experienced by the unborn child during an abortion. The suction abortion, used up to 12 weeks, disembowels and dismembers the child alive. There are no survivors. The saline abortion, used in the second trimester, consists of the removal of some of the amniotic fluid from the womb. This is then replaced with a saline solution. During the next several hours this slowly kills the child: it burns the eyes, the lungs, and the skin. The mother goes into labour and gives birth to a dead child. Some babies have been known to survive such a procedure. They are simply left to die, unattended and alone.
The issue of foetal pain has become very prominent in the last few years. Medical science doctors confirm that when the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing.
Twenty-six physicians, including two past presidents of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have affirmed foetal pain. Their response stated in part: "The ability to feel pain and respond to it is clearly not a phenomenon that develops de novo at birth. We all have sympathy and empathy for our fellow man, and even animals that show outward signs of pain and suffering. Surely, if animals can be protected from inhumane killing techniques, the unborn child should have the right not to be subjected to this kind of cruel and unusual punishment".
With the advent of technology such as amniocentesis, we now see abortions being done to assure parents that a child of desired sex is obtained. Most often these sex selection abortions result in the retention of the male and the destruction of the female.
More and more people are beginning to recognize that women themselves are victims of abortion. Women are often not told the facts concerning the unborn child. Women are
Abortion
often not told about the physical and psychological problems which can result from abortion.
That is why we need and we must have a tremendous increase in services for pregnant women, so that the thoughts of contemplating abortion would be nullified by the thought that good support programs, moral support, and financial support are readily and amply available for women during pregnancy and for some time after the birth of the baby. This is imperative. All of us, including those of us in public office, must work together to make more of these services a reality. I know that the cost for such services would be tremendous, but how can one equate that cost with the present holocaust of killing some 60,000 unborn babies annually? There is no comparison. That is why we must push forward for an increase in these services.
Women today are not given the type of support that is necessary at such a vulnerable time. Decent and reasonable alternatives are often withheld. Some are forced to abandon further education or employment. Then society politely offers abortion and calls it the "women's choice". More and more women are realizing that they are being terribly exploited by our selfish abortion-oriented society. This is discrimination against women and against the very nature of womanhood. I support women's rights, but individual rights top when they affect the rights of another. No man or woman has the right to take the life of another individual in or out of the womb.
In summary, I have just reviewed how many Canadian unborn children are denied basic rights as other rights are supposedly pursued. They have no recourse to be heard on the denial or infringement of rights; they have been deprived of the most fundamental right, the right to life; and they are subjected to cruel and unusual treatment. They are discriminated against on the basis of age, and they are discriminated against on the basis of handicap. We have seen that women are discriminated against as they are not protected from abortion. They are manipulated by society to do the most unnatural thing in the world, to kill their own tiny child.
To have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms is commendable, but how can we say that we will respect and even guarantee basic human rights to every individual and then proceed to devalue and dehumanize an entire segment of our human community? Such thinking is unscientific, immoral, and unacceptable.
I have spoken about the plight of the unborn in Canada today. Surely these abuses go far beyond the respectable intentions of the Charter. I hope that you can see, from this very brief outline, that the plight of the unprotected unborn child and his mother is especially pitiful when we consider what a caring and loving society could do for them. As a just, compassionate and humane society, we must extend to these little ones and their mothers the equal respect, the protection, and the benefit of the law.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
It was not that many years ago that people in Canada generally had a very high regard and a high respect for the unborn child and there were very few abortions. In the past abortions were provided for truly therapeutic reasons, and they were carried out to save the life of the mother.
Today we have abortion for reasons of convenience, and abortion is the solution that is given to women to solve their problems. Granted, it would take more effort on the part of society to meet the needs and the requirements of these women than it would to pay for an abortion.
I stress again that more support is needed to provide assistance to women who are pregnant and need and want support. When these women come forth for counselling and are offered the kind of love, the kind of compassion, and the kind of services that will meet their needs, they will very rarely opt for abortion. Time and time again they will go on; with assistance, with help that is being offered to them, they will go on and carry their children.
Whether or not the law on abortion is changed in the near future, our attitude to it can change. After all, smoking is not illegal in our society, but the attitude toward it and the formidable educational effort directed against it have led to a significant decline in smoking over the past 15 years. The same sort of result is possible with respect to abortion. All that we require is the resolve to act and the need to act.
In only 16 years from 1970 to 1986, some 907,351 unborn Canadian children were wilfully and painfully put to death by abortion. This is tragic, to say the least, and must be stopped. We must stop this carnage.
Thomas Jefferson once said: "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government". He did not say the unwanted or those who do not measure up to certain standards are to be excluded from protection.
The public is being informed that because some lives are deemed to be inferior, they need not be afforded the privilege of life. An expression that is commonly heard today is "quality of life". While "quality of life" is certainly a good thing to which all aspire, the term, as currently used, has meaning beyond this universal desire, and it is the new meaning that makes it so foreboding. The elimination of the unborn who are unwanted, retarded, or handicapped is presently practised because of this new ethic.
Past history tells us that a society that does not respect all human life begins with the killing of the most helpless of victims and then proceeds to the handicapped and others who are considered to be below standard. The ultimate question is: "What is the value of human life and individual human beings?" For thousands of years our Judaeo-Christian tradition has upheld and valued life. Civilization has always been measured by a view of mankind that affirms the worth and dignity of each person. We were born to love, and it is our
expression of love that binds us together and elevates our level of humanism.
Canada's challenge today is making firm a future in which free men and women are enabled to live in a society which preserves and promotes the equality, worth, and dignity of every human being. The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government. It is the duty of all of us as legislators to protect those human beings, those unborn babies who cannot speak for themselves, who cannot defend themselves, and who cannot protect themselves.
The sanctity of human life is too precious for any arbitrariness and compromise in this very important question that we are dealing with today in this Parliament. It is imperative that we take positive action and whatever that action requires to protect the lives of all unborn children from the time of conception.
At this time I would like to file the following amendment to this motion. My amendment would delete all of the words following "Such legislation should prohibit the performance of an abortion, subject to the following exceptions". This amendment is seconded by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm). The following will be substituted therefor: "When two or more independent qualified medical practitioners have in good faith and on reasonable grounds stated that in their opinion the continuation of the pregnancy would or would be likely to endanger the life of the pregnant woman."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I take the view that it is essential for Parliament to have this debate. I believe that Canadians have a right to know what and how their legislators are thinking about this vital issue. It has been said that living itself is life's most complete treasure. We all know that there are many kinds of violence in our society, violence that robs life of that treasure of living. There is war, highway traffic accidents, dreaded diseases of many kinds, murders, and suicides, but it is chilling for me to realize that the most violent place in Canada today is not some dark side street in a decayed section of an inner city; it is, rather, the human womb.
Each year in Canada there are more than 60,000 abortions performed. I want to say that in no way can abortion be considered as merely an elective surgical procedure. It is, as former Prime Minister Trudeau once said, and I quote: "The very frightening moral decision of killing something which is living inside a person". Even Madam Justice Bertha Wilson admitted that abortion was not just a medical decision. She said that it was a profound social and ethical one as well. This was part of her recent decision that struck down the legislation on the statute books of Canada. She also said, and again I quote: "The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state's interests in its protection becomes compelling I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature".
July 26, 1988

It will be noted that Justice Wilson recognizes that there is a state interest in protecting the foetus. Her only question is: When does that obligation commence? That is her question. She does not indicate, either, by what means this protection can be granted and guaranteed. She leaves that to us. She leaves that to the Bill which will eventually have to follow the motion we are debating today. I return to my first point, that it is therefore essential that we debate this subject in Parliament.
There are some who say that we must find that middle ground on this serious social and moral issue of abortion. I think the middle ground that some people are talking about is mythical in nature. It is non-existent. I wonder, how can there be middle ground? There is life and there is death.
In 1975 Hon. Otto Lang, then Liberal Minister of Justice, said in an interview with Bruce Garvey for The Toronto Star, and I quote: "You cannot distinguish between the life of the unborn and the born, there's no biological cut-off date". I have had the privilege to listen to distinguished physicians who have confirmed and verified that point of view.
When this Parliament, once again in a free vote, made its decision on the question of capital punishment, I, for a third time as a Member of Parliament, voted for abolition. I did so because I am pro-life and anti-violence. I am not persuaded that when the state kills felons who are guilty of murder that it makes society a better or a safer or a happier place for others.
On the contrary, I took the view that state executions merely add to the sum total of violence in society and perhaps even, in a certain sense, condone violence as an acceptable means to achieve a satisfactory end. I say no. It does not work that way. The means is unacceptable and the end is unsatisfactory.
Recently I read Truman Capote's best seller of many years ago, In Cold Blood. The savage, brutal murder of an entire family in rural Kansas by two deeply disturbed young men was a story of unprovoked, irrational violence at its worse. Yet, as Capote went on to reveal the background and personalities of those two young men, by the end of the book one did not want to see them hanged. Treatment for them, yes. Full freedom, never. But death? No.
When I voted against capital punishment I knew that a majority of my constituents thought otherwise, but I did so on the grounds of being for life, even life which is stained and marred and warped by dreadful human experiences. At this moment, however, I am grateful that on this issue of abortion I am able to be more in tune and in step with what I know to be the prevailing view in my constituency.
In being for life on the abortion question I must say that I take this stand not without some difficulty. One of those difficulties has to do with the life and the health of the mother. Thank goodness, Sir, that modern gynaecology makes it less and less likely that pregnancy can cause death or seriously impair the health of the mother. To medical science we pay
Abortion
tribute for that fact. Still, if there are those clear and indisputable cases where a choice has to be made between life or death for one or the other, the mother or the unborn child, it is in my view the mother without question who must live.
Of great concern to me also is the victim of rape or incest who becomes pregnant. That is among those extreme cases where an appeal from the woman in a just society would demand a sympathetic and most responsive hearing. To have children born as a result of rape or incest will do nothing to achieve quality family life and that really goes without saying.
However, an even harder case is the one involving a highly strung, harassed mother of four young children living in a remote mining town and married to a weak-willed, selfindulgent man. Her fifth pregnancy was more than she could bear and abortions at that time were illegal. Therefore, she went to a back street abortionist, got blood poisoning as a result, and subsequently died. She left behind a guilt burdened husband and four motherless children.
One of the arguments that the pro-abortionists use is that before legalization, before the Criminal Code was amended, there were thousands of such women dying every year as a result of botched up back alley abortions. I thought that, too, until Doctor T. A. Kasper, an Edmonton pathologist, noted in a letter to Members of Parliament quite recently that this argument for abortion is without any valid statistical foundation. He goes on in his letter to say, however:
Even with legal abortions performed under the strictest control, in the finest
institutions, the statistics show that the risks to the life of the mother are
greater than the risks to her carrying the infant to term.
Going back to the tragic case of the harassed mother of four, I would suggest to you and my colleagues in the House that the answer to that situation was not an abortion being used as a means to solve a serious social problem. Rather, the answer was to have a more responsible husband, to live in a more caring community, with facilities to help that person, with affordable and easily accessible child care facilities, a community that had adequate counselling services.
Are you aware that there are people who live in the more remote parts of this country who, when they have a difficult and real problem, really have no place to go? There is no one to whom they can turn. There is no one who will take the time to listen. There is no one who can listen in a way that can be helpful.
I sometimes suspect that the rationale for an abortion on demand policy is basically anti-child in nature. Richard Needham, a former columnist for The Globe and Mail, once wrote in his own inimical and cynical style:
The first half of our lives is ruined by our parents, the second half by our children.
Well, Sir, you know as do I that children place heavy demands on parents. Children create huge costs for society in education, child care, health and recreational facilities, yet we are not spending enough for our children. I say, Sir, that it is

July 26, 1988
Abortion
better to incur those huge costs than it is to waste our money on useless war toys like nuclear submarines.
Children need and demand an extensive amount of nurturing, watching, attending, and loving. All of this conflicts so often with a consumer driven, upwardly mobile society. The ideal has become: double income and no kids. Why? So that more of the good things of this world can be accumulated and acquired.
Sir, few can have it both ways. You cannot have it all and children as well. Those two life-styles are often seen as incompatible. Children are extremely costly to raise and parental responsibilities tend to go on and on before those children become fully independent and self-supporting adults.
Having said that, the decision not to have children is entirely a personal one. However, to abort a foetus goes beyond the personal. It involves society as a whole. That point of view is supported and backed up by the recent Supreme Court decision. Thus, I contend that consumerism, materialism, and plain selfishness are possible motives which may lie in part at least behind the call for abortion on demand.
Those who are pro-life are not necessarily stupid and ignorant as Henry Morgentaler has charged. They may in fact be more caring, more compassionate and concerned, less ruthless and far more respectful of life in all its many manifestations and more willing to share what they have.
Morris C. Shumiacher, a distinguished and highly respected legal counsel from Regina, Saskatchewan, said in an address to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons the following:
There is no challenge in death-only defeat. There is no hope in destruction-only despair. Therefore choose not death but life that the world may not despair and die. Choose life

that we may live.
The Supreme Court of Canada will in due course, shortly, have to rule on the meaning in our Constitution of the phrase that stands out whenever I read it which says that everyone has the right to life. What the Supreme Court will decide in that pending case I do not know. However, for me, the right to life applies equally to the born and to the unborn. It therefore follows, again in my view, that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that this right to life is protected "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Based on that constitutional principle, there would be many, many fewer abortions performed in Canada.
The Government's motion with regard to abortion is not one that I am, in all conscience, able to accept. I am grateful for the debate. The motion, however, is not acceptable. I will, therefore, on Thursday be voting against it.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, let me briefly outline some of the arguments in support of the pro-life position on abortion, a position which I have consistently and unequivocally held up throughout my tenure in public office.
The case can best be put by simply allowing the biological and physiological facts to speak for themselves.
First, it is well known that all the information necessary for the development of each of us as a unique human being is contained in the genetic code that is present from the moment of conception. The colour of our eyes, the size of our feet, and the capacity of our brains have all been established in that instant. Nothing needs to be added other than food, shelter, and care.
Second, the indicators of life and development are early and dramatic. The unborn produces its own blood at 17 to 20 days after conception. Its heart begins beating at 24 to 25 days. Between the sixth and seventh weeks, the electrical activity of the brain in readable, and at eight weeks all the essential organs are present. The unborn can cry, hiccup, develop individual tastes, be startled, and feel pain. Indeed, according to Sir William Liley of New Zealand, knighted because of his pioneering work in amniocentesis, the unborn child is not a part of the mother's body but is a separate person who dictates its own growth and when he or she is to be born.
Third, apart from abortion, the medical community treats the foetus as any other patient. It is now possible to perform corrective surgery on the foetus while still in the womb or even to remove, operate on, and subsequently replace the foetus so that it may come to full term. Clearly, it cannot be and it is not viewed as a piece of tissue to be removed and discarded at will.
Fourth, remarkable developments in neo-natal technology now allow foetal viability as early as five months from conception. Witness, for example, the survival of a baby recently born here in Ottawa at just 21 weeks gestation. Yet we know that abortions are even now being performed upon foetuses above and beyond 21 weeks development and furthermore that some of these have even survived the attempts to abort them.
The fact that the unborn are now viable at increasingly early stages of development has rendered the whole question of foetal viability something of a moving target. It is forcing American legislators to reconsider their trimester approach to abortion. Why then, I ask of those of my colleagues who are in favour of a gestational approach, must we repeat the errors and ignore the lessons of the American experience?
Finally, I think it is instructive to read how, in 1975, after an exhaustive examination of the available biological and physiological evidence by 133 world renowned scientists, geneticists, and gynaecologists, the West German Federal Constitutional Court responded to the question as to when life begins. The court was acutely conscious of the events which took place in Germany between 1933 and 1945 and was therefore especially anxious to ground its judgment in scientific objectivity. Its conclusion was:
Life, in the sense of historical existence of a human individual, exists
according to definite biological-physiological knowledge, in any case, from
the 14th day after conception (nidation, individuation)... The process of


July 26, 1988

development which has begun at that point is a continuing process which
exhibits no sharp demarcation and does not allow a precise division of the
various steps of development of the human life.
I hope that the judgment of Canada's Supreme Court on the Borowski case will be equally objective and unequivocal in its estimation of the evidence.
One's position on abortion cannot be construed and thereby dismissed as being simply a matter of personal opinion or belief. Rather, in and of itself, the medical evidence is concrete. It is objective. It is compelling. Life is an uninterrupted continuum which begins at conception and ends at death. Without doubt, abortion brings about the cessation of a living human being during the process of its development along that continuum.
The performance of an abortion must contend with this incontrovertible fact. For those who value human life, it can only be justified on grounds of self-defence in those rare instances when another life, that of the mother, is in demonstrable danger, and where there is no other acceptable medical procedure to obviate that danger.
Consequently, while each Member is free to make up his or her own mind, this free vote should not be viewed as one Member's beliefs, values or opinions against those of another, with the added implication that one opinion is just as good as another. On the contrary, a Member's opinion on a matter of such fundamental significance as this can only be valid if the facts are there to support it.
Facts are facts, Mr. Speaker, whether you accept them, reject them, or ignore them. You cannot have your list of facts while I have mine. The biological and physiological evidence concerning the unborn child will simply not allow us the expedient and fallacious post-enlightenment liberal separation between the public world of fact on the one hand and the private world of values on the other.
The medical facts support those who are committed to the value system that upholds the unborn as a living human being deserving of legal protection. It is incumbent upon those who would argue otherwise, that is, those espousing a pro-choice or gestational approach to abortion, to supply the requisite, concrete evidence in support of their own particular beliefs, values or opinions. To refuse to do so, I submit, is pure hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.
Therefore, in the light of what I have sought to outline, both the gestational and the pro-choice options must be rejected as completely unacceptable to those concerned to uphold the sanctity of human life. The reasons are self-evident.
First, the pro-choice option leaves the issue of abortion to be decided by the woman in consultation with a qualified medical practitioner. Of course, this begs the obvious question as to precisely what it is the woman is being given the freedom of choice to do. The obvious answer is that she is free to terminate the life of the developing foetus. Such an action flies in
Abortion
the face of all the medical data concerning the foetus. Furthermore, if the growing evidence concerning post-abortion syndrome is considered, the pro-choice position does a terrible disservice to the well-being of the mother herself.
The motion before us, the so-called middle ground, is in fact a gestational approach. It would allow an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy where continuation of the pregnancy threatens the woman's physical or mental well-being. While the exact time limit to be placed upon this early stage is yet to be determined, it is unlikely that it would be much less than 12 weeks and, in all probability, it would be closer to 18 to 24 weeks. Flenry Morgentaler has stated 24 weeks as his preference.
Given that Statistics Canada figures show that 89 per cent of current abortions take place before 13 weeks and that 96.5 per cent occur before 17 weeks, and given the fact that the term "mental well-being" is extremely broad in scope, the motion, as a gestational approach, effectively functions as abortion on demand in the vast majority of instances.
Furthermore, this motion would also allow abortions at a later stage in the pregnancy should the continuation of the pregnancy endanger the woman's life or seriously injure her health. This, of course, is virtually the same as the former abortion law under Section 251 of the Criminal Code and shares all of its obvious deficiencies. Why, it may be asked, would we want to re-enact legislation that the Supreme Court has recently struck down?
Consequently, neither the pro-choice nor gestational options will do. Indeed, they completely bypass all medical evidence concerning the nature and status of the foetus. They are but thinly guised legislative means of allowing the women, doctor, and legislator to abdicate their responsibility and ignore the evidence.
It has been argued by some, for example the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League, that a restrictive abortion law is unconstitutional. Indeed, some have claimed that only a gestational approach or even a pro-choice direction would be acceptable to the Supreme Court.
This argument, I submit, is completely false. It is largely based upon the opinion of Justice Bertha Wilson who suggested that the commencement of Parliament's interest in the foetus, it seemed to her, "would fall somewhere in the second trimester".
Judge Dickson, however, said: "The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state's interest in its protection becomes 'compelling' should be left to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive submissions on the subject from all the relevant disciplines".
By way of further contrast, Justice Beetz, in giving his judgment, cited favourably United States Supreme Court Justice O'Connor's opinion in City of Akron vs. Akron Centre for Reproductive Health, to the effect that "the state's interest

July 26, 1988
Abortion
in protecting potential human life exists throughout the pregnancy"; in other words, from conception to birth.
To anyone who affords the Supreme Court judgment on the Morgentaler case a careful reading, the following facts are self-evident. First, there is no constitutional right to an abortion. Second, as Judge Dickson indicated, it is Parliament's prerogative and responsibility to summon together all available evidence and then decide the state's interest in the foetus. Third, Parliament's interest need not necessarily require a gestational or pro-choice position. Fourth, as Judges Beetz and Estey stated, Parliament's interest need not exclude a life and health standard approach which includes the confirmation of a second, independent medical opinion. Fifth, Parliament's interest need not disallow a life and health standard which is very restrictive, even to the point of excluding first trimester abortions.
Clearly, it is both Parliament's privilege and responsibility to decide as to the rights of the foetus from conception on. I can only agree with Judge Dickson that Parliament should reach its decision on this matter after informing itself by means of all evidence at hand.
As I have argued throughout, all biological and physiological data available leads one to one conclusion only, that the foetus is an autonomous life in development. As such, the only reasonable legislative option is that which serves to protect the rights of the foetus throughout its development.
Furthermore, this right can only be abrogated, on the grounds of self-defence, in those rare instances where the mother's life is in demonstrable danger and where there is no other acceptable medical procedure to obviate that danger.
Of course, there must always be concern for the well-being of the mother, but her best interests are served only when the utmost respect is afforded all human life; that of the mother, her unborn child and, indeed, society itself.
This, therefore, is the pro-life position. I shall support any amendment before this House which gives a strong pro-life direction to the Government, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Unfortunately, the abortion debate has been construed as one of competing interests, the right of the mother to be free to choose versus the right of the unborn to live. However, surely it defies all that we hold dear about humanity to speak of a mother and her unborn child as being in competition against one another. Only a pathetically distorted sense of what is right and what is freedom could render mother and child as antagonists.
Every reasonable Canadian knows that there are necessary and legitimate limits to rights and freedoms, especially where human life is concerned. Otherwise, we are left vulnerable to the tyranny of anarchy.
As the esteemed American Judge Learned Hand has said: "A society in which men recognize no check upon their
freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few ... (but the true) spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs (the interest of others) alongside its own without bias".
Consequently, as the philosopher Francis Schaeffer has noted, abortion is not solely a feminist issue any more than slavery was only a slave owner's issue; rather, "the fate of the unborn is a question of the fate of the human race. We are one human family. If the rights of one part of that family are denied, it is of concern to each of us. What is at stake is no less than the essence of what freedom and rights are all about".
Given all that I have said, I would like to take advantage of the unanimous agreement of the three Parties and table the following amendment. "That all of the words in the motion after the "to protect the unborn; and" be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "Such legislation should prohibit the performance of an abortion except when: -two independent qualified medical practitioners have, in good faith and on reasonable grounds, in writing, stated that in their opinion the continuation of the pregnancy would, or would be likely to, endanger the life of the pregnant woman or seriously and substantially endanger her health and there is no other commonly accepted medical procedure for effectively treating the health risk; but the grounds for such an opinion are not to include (I) the effects of stress or anxiety which may accompany an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy, or (II) social or economic considerations."
That motion is seconded by the Hon. Member for Surrey- White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). It is crucial to note that this amendment specifically defines the parameters of the term "health", which was a requirement in the Supreme Court judgment, that is, the threat to a woman's health must be, first, serious and substantial; second, such that there is no other commonly accepted medical procedure for effectively treating the health risk; and third, other than the anxiety and stress which normally accompanies an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy. Additionally, socio-economic factors may not be grounds for an abortion.
It is also important to realize that the distinction between this amendment and the amendment just put by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) is a very fine one. This view is in accordance with the interpretation of pro-life medical and legal experts. For example, in my own Kitchener constituency, Dr. John Sehl, obstetrician and gynaecologist, views this amendment as extremely restrictive and has urged me to support it. He is convinced that if the medical community were to act in accordance with the wording of this amendment it would effectively allow it to perform abortions in life threatening circumstances only. The validity of this position has received widespread recognition throughout a broad cross-section of those concerned about Canada's unborn.
July 26, 1988

For example, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has called upon us here to "take serious account of the concern expressed by many pro-life Members of Parliament that abstention from voting, because the perfect law has not been presented, may indirectly contribute to the passage of a motion which allows for the totally unacceptable gestational approach".
Similarly, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, representing some 2.4 million Canadians, urges Members to vote for an amendment which "is at least pointing our society in a life-affirming direction". It adds: "It would be a tragedy if our children recorded that at a critical moment in Canadian history evil prevailed because good people did nothing".
Likewise, the Salvation Army says the following:
It is our firm opinion, based on the Christian conviction that all human life is sacred, and borne out of our many years of experience in ministering to the needs of women, that (such an amendment as this)... most nearly offers a civilized nation a way whereby all human life may continue to be regarded with awe and treated with utmost dignity.
It is with this view that I have submitted this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have tabled the Hon. Member's amendment as per the agreement.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I rise to participate in the debate we have begun this afternoon on the motion which would give guidance to the Government as to what direction legislation should take with respect to abortion.
During the time available to me I want to talk about the issue of abortion itself, my feelings about it, the feelings that have been expressed to me by constituents and others across the country, and then to talk about the motion itself and some of the changes I believe should be made to it.
I do not believe that my position on abortion is a surprise to anyone in the House or indeed in my constituency. I have made it clear, when we have had debates formerly on Private Members' Motions with respect to abortion, that I am a strong advocate of the concept that women must have the right to choose whether or not they wish to terminate a pregnancy.
We had several debates about the former law, Section 251 of the Criminal Code. I was not happy with it, yet it seemed at that time, as it seems now, that it was difficult to obtain a consensus about what kind of changes should be made in the law. We tended to say that it is there, it seemed to work relatively well, and perhaps it should not be changed.
Of course, the situation occurred with the Supreme Court decision on the Morgentaler case which has required us now to reconsider this vital question involving so many different competing interests of philosophical, religious, and moral views about life and about the role of women. I know it is a very difficult hard decision for many people to make. Some of my colleagues have already talked about the Supreme Court
Abortion
decision. It struck down the old law because, in the view of the Supreme Court, it did not meet the requirements of the Charter of Rights. The requirement of the hospital committees was deemed to be arbitrary.
The decision itself and the writing of some of the judges in that decision have been important in terms of determining the kind of approach we are discussing now. Philosophically, my own view would be that we do not really need legislation. Yet I know there is a strong feeling among colleagues and many members of the public that there needs to be some statement in law about abortion, about women's rights, and potentially about the developing rights of the foetus. Indeed, some of the words that were expressed in the decision of the Supreme Court would lead us to believe that this is what they were thinking as well.
Madam Bertha Wilson's comments in that decision are the ones that I feel very close to. I think she expressed many of my own views very well. She talked in her decision about the ways in which one could balance the women's role and the women's right to choose, and the possibility that at a certain stage in a pregnancy that the role of society could come into play. She said: "There is a point at which the state interest and the protection of the foetus becomes compelling. This point is to be left to the legislature. It seems to me however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester".
We are not dealing, in the motion before us, with the particular point in time. That would obviously come forward with legislation, but we are dealing with a gestational concept, to try to find that balance about which I know many people feel strongly.
Although my own view is that we do not actually need this legislation, and that the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be that of a woman in consultation with her physician, I recognize that the approach put forward by the Government is one that requires serious consideration.
Let us look at the state of abortion in Canada and elsewhere. We have heard from time to time that the number of abortions are rising dramatically and that without law this might become an even greater issue.
First, Canada is not among those nations that has the most liberal abortion law. About 40 per cent of people around the world live in countries where there is basically abortion upon request, certainly in the early stages. That includes United States, U.S.S.R., China, France, and Italy. We fall in a category with about 25 per cent of the world's population which has certain constraints. They are similar in some ways to Britain, India, and Japan.
The remaining 25 per cent of the world's population lives in countries where, generally speaking, there are very tight laws with respect to abortion, countries with either strong Roman Catholic or Moslem religions which have had greater influence on public policy.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
It is interesting to look at the situation, because even in those countries where abortion has been stringently constrained, when women make the decision that they wish to pursue this course of action, they will find ways to do it. Although there are tight abortion laws in Ireland, Irish women are as likely as women in the liberal Netherlands to obtain abortions. It would be a matter of going to the United Kingdom.
To some extent we find this in Canada, and this was one of my great concerns with the old law. Indeed, I knew a young woman who had to take this course. When abortions are not available in their communities, they would have to go to the United States to obtain an abortion. I do not think that was appropriate or right. I hope that situation will change.
Some people also claim that the incidence of abortion in Canada is high and disproportionate. I would argue that. According to the last statistics, 1984-85, there were in the order of 61,000 abortions performed in Canada, 99 per cent prior to 20 weeks. Only in a very few and exceptional circumstances were abortions performed after that time.
In other countries with which we often associated ourselves as having similar standards of morality, such as England, the incidence of abortion was 33 per cent higher. In France it was 30 per cent higher, in Japan it was 75 per cent higher, and in the United States it has been twice as high.
I do not personally believe that should this motion pass and legislation be introduced, it would have an impact on the numbers. I believe that once a woman makes that kind of decision she will find a way. We have a responsibility to ensure that she has the facilities in which an abortion can be provided safely and under proper medical conditions and that it is covered by our health care plans.
This brings me to something about which I want to comment as a woman and as the mother of three children. I have had discussions about abortion with women I have dealt with over the years. I have talked to women who have had abortions and mothers of daughters who have had abortions. I do not think women take this issue lightly. I sometimes hear from people that abortion is used as a method of birth control. There may be times when that is done, but I think it is certainly the exception to the rule. For most women, the decision to terminate a pregnancy, to have an abortion, is a very difficult and traumatic decision. It is not one that is taken lightly. I do not think that we as a society should impose further difficulties on women so that in some cases they have to suffer the possibility of further health problems or mental health problems in terms of seeking a solution.
I would like to turn to the Supreme Court decision. Bertha Wilson in her rationale of why the old law was struck down, in my mind, went to the heart of the issue. She said:
... the decision to terminate a pregnancy ... is one that will have profound
psychological, economic and social consequences for the pregnant women.
The circumstances giving rise to it can be complex and varied and there may be... powerful considerations militating in opposite directions. It is a decision that deeply reflects the way the woman thinks about herself and her relationship to others and to society at large. It is a profound social and ethical decision. Her response to it will be the response of a whole person.
The old Section 251 put the decision in the hands of a committee and so takes away the decision that a woman has a right to make for herself without any state interference.
Judge Wilson goes on to say that Section 251 also violates the right to security because it treats the pregnant women as a passive recipient of a decision made by others as to whether her body is to be used to nurture a new life. I would certainly concur with the reasoning of Justice Bertha Wilson. I cannot comprehend any laws which take away my right to make a decision about my body, about my future. I just do not think that is right. I would ask other Members to think about that.
If women are faced with the situation of a pregnancy they do not wish to carry to term, they want to make that decision as quickly as possible. The evidence is clear. Only .3 per cent of pregnancies in Canada are carried out in the last trimester. Those are the truly exceptional cases. Perhaps we do not really need, then, to consider a gestational approach because that probably is not the issue. At the same time, however, there is this feeling in society that there should be some statement of protection of the developing foetus at a certain stage. I can accept that and would be prepared to accept some limitations on the right of a woman to make that decision in the later stages of the pregnancy. I will come to some suggestions about that in a few moments.
There is often a lot of statistics quoted about the public's view. A Gallup poll in April indicated that about 70 per cent of Canadians believe that a decision to terminate a pregnancy should be a matter of choice for the woman and her physician. That is certainly supported by a survey undertaken in my own riding. I asked the question in my householder this spring and received over 2,200 replies. That is a much larger response than I would ever have expected and is really very significant. The number of people who wrote comments, wanting to give me their views, was very heartening. It showed that the constituency of Capilano is very much in tune with the general views of Canadians. Only 12 per cent indicated that they would support legislation to prevent all abortions, but 69 per cent indicated that abortion should be a matter of choice between a woman and her doctor during the early stages of pregnancy.
Despite the strongly held views people might have on religious grounds against abortion, and I appreciate those views, I think we have to consider that the majority of Canadians believe that abortion, certainly in the earlier stages of pregnancy, should be a choice between the woman and her physician. Those who feel strongly on the other side of the question should have the right to promulgate their views, to try to encourage women to pursue other options. I would hope as well that they and all of us would pursue more options to encourage all people to be more responsible with respect to reproduction. We should be encouraging Planned Parenthood
July 26, 1988

and other organizations so that these women are not faced with the question of unwanted pregnancies. I think people should make their views known, but I would ask them not to constrain my right as an individual with what in my mind is a minority view that there should be a law imposed on the majority. I do not think the majority accepts that.
I want to share with the House some of the comments of my constituents when they wrote to me on this issue. I received many letters on both sides of the issue, but these are some of the comments I thought particularly interesting:
There may be numerous instances where abortion is the only choice available for the woman involved. I feel that no one has the right to tell me what to do with my body. I am a responsible person who takes precautions at all times but if I found myself facing an unwanted pregnancy, it would be that one chance in a thousand or more where birth control fails. No one should force me to carry through with such an unwanted pregnancy.
And another constituent wrote:
As each case is different in nature, it should be judged on its individual merits by the woman involved with advice from her doctor, not ruled by some blanket across-the-board law.
And a third constituent wrote:
Each person has a responsibility to decide their own future. Whatever choice they make, they have to live with it.
And finally:
Women must have the fundamental right to decide according to their own conscience on this matter. There should be no interference from those holding a particular religious view. Separate church and state, in justice to all living women.
I would like to conclude by speaking to the motion itself and to the suggestions I have already laid on the table for some amendments which I feel would substantially improve the motion. They would bring it in line with what I believe to be the opinion of the majority of Canadians. They would certainly bring it much closer to my own views.
The motion as it stands, in trying to find that very difficult and delicate balance between the right of a woman to liberty and security of her person, and the responsibility of society to protect the unborn, still provides too many constraints on that right of choice for the woman in the early stages of pregnancy. It still requires a qualified medical practitioner to be of the opinion that the continuation of the pregnancy would or would likely threaten her physical or mental well-being. It seems that that is someone else telling me that it threatens or does not threaten my life or well-being. I do not accept that. I believe it must be my choice, in consultation with my physician, as to whether I want to proceed with an abortion.
I have laid before the House an amendment which would delete that provision in the first part. It would mean that in the early stages of pregnancy it would be the right of the woman to choose. In the early stages of pregnancy I feel that the requirement to have two physicians is onerous. It is arbitrary. I do not believe that it would withstand a court challenge. In
Abortion
fact it could result in delays which could be detrimental to the health or life of the mother.
I feel it should be only one qualified medical practitioner who is of the opinion that the continuation of the pregnancy would or would likely endanger the woman's life, or seriously endanger her health. In that respect we have to be sure that health is interpreted as it is by the United Nations to include both the physical and mental health of the mother. In many cases tests are not available until later in the stages, tests which detect serious foetal abnormalities and which could have a serious impact on the woman's mental health. She would then still have the right, in consultation with her physician, to choose how to terminate the pregnancy at that point. Generally speaking, that is an extremely rare situation but we must provide for such situations as well.
I know people sometimes say that on the Progressive Conservative side of the House there are not too many of us who are strong advocates of a choice position. There is a large group of Tories for choice in my City of Vancouver with whom I have been working, as well as a group in Toronto.
The National Progressive Conservative Women's Federation passed a motion which indicated that we believe that the final decision to have an abortion during the first phase of pregnancy should rest with the woman. I want to put that on the record because, as we will see during this debate, this is not an issue which breaks down on Party lines. It is an issue which breaks down on one's own philosophical view, one's own moral view. Ultimately, for me, it is my view as to the rights of a woman.
I am asking colleagues on all sides of the House to support the amendments which I have tabled. I think that with these amendments the motion before the House could truly provide guidance to the Government. It could result in some legislation which would find that appropriate balance of the life, the security of the woman and the potential concern over the developing foetus.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I thank the Hon. Member for filing the amendment earlier today. The Chair would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier on debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this debate on a motion dealing with abortion is unfortunate because it will not produce any concrete results, it will not give Canadians any firm direction, and it will not give us legislation that will satisfy anyone in this country. It is too bad the Government did not have the courage to table a Bill because of the divisions within its Party on this issue, and it is also regrettable that this is the second motion to be put before the House, a motion which I find unacceptable because it is neither hot nor cold, ignores the real issues and does not offer any kind of solution.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
Mr. Speaker, when last January the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in the case of the Queen versus Dr. Elenry Morgantaler, Dr. Leslie Frank Smoling and Dr. Robert Scott, everyone was taken by surprise, and after giving the problem some serious thought, the Government announced, through the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that it would react with celerity, and that it would shortly table new legislation that would meet the legal test, in other words, it would contain the kind of legal language that would stand the test of the courts. In an interview he gave on March 18 of this year,

The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is quoted as saying, in an article in The Ottawa Citizen of March 18, 1988, the following:
The federal Government won't wait for a Law Reform Commission report before it introduces a new abortion law ... It is necessary to act on an urgent basis.
That was some six months ago. We are now faced, after several months, with a motion which, in my view, will not satisfy anyone. It will not give Canadians that new law on an urgent basis.
I am satisfied that at least my Party, the Liberal Party, will have a free vote on this issue. I think that it is a good thing for Members of Parliament to express through a free vote their views on issues such as abortion. We expressed our views on the death penalty. On these difficult moral and ethical issues we have to stand and tell our constituents where we stand. I think that is good. People can say: "Well, my Member voted against the death penalty. He is not in favour of this motion put forward by the Government on abortion because basically he has been saying for the last 16 years in the riding of Ottawa-Vanier that he is against abortion on demand. He has said that repeatedly before every election". I am one of those who believe that there are reasons, serious reasons, to justify interrupting a pregnancy when the health of the mother is threatened, or when the individual has been violently and sometimes strongly emotionally affected by rape, or is the object of such a heinous crime as incest.
In my riding the people understand that abortion cannot be used as a means of contraception. I know that the people in my riding who hold the other view do not think that I am being very supportive of the free choice movement, but I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I believe that the pro-choice movement, the extreme pro-choice movement, does not represent a view which I can defend. I do not think that the pro-life movement, the extreme of that movement, represents my views either. I have said so over the years to them. In my riding I have been called the worst traditionalist there is. If being a traditionalist means standing up for certain things, then I am a traditionalist.
I want to talk about the need for legislation and why I think this motion is wrong. However, I want to talk about the difficulty that we are having in the country with the lack of
leadership of the Government in terms of giving Canadians a clear and unequivocal stand on where the Cabinet sits and on what it does. That is the parliamentary system as I know it. They have been elected and chosen to administer and to make proposals to the House. The House is then supposed to dispose of them in a democratic fashion.
I do not think that the Government can get away by hiding behind a wishy-washy motion such as the one before us, which is procedurally correct, thank you very much. The first motion, Motion No. 25, was not procedurally correct. We told the Government that. This one is procedurally correct and, by unanimous consent, we have accepted that debate be limited, but everybody will have a chance. All those who want to speak can come into the House until six o'clock tomorrow morning- if they have the patience-and state their views. Tomorrow the same scenario will apply, starting at three o'clock until six o'clock, Thursday morning. There is the possibility for some 60 to 70 people to speak. That will be a minority of the House, but at least it will be a debate which is open to all those who want to participate.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why I truly believe the Government showed a lack of courage and leadership by not tabling a Bill is that legislation would give Canadians some clear and specific parameters on the issue of abortion. In a motion, which has no force of law, it is hard to describe and define what one wants to say, while legislation, with its definitions and terms and the way it is drafted, can give us a much broader range of understanding by the way it defines those terms.
This motion, Motion No. 36 before the House today, does not provide a definition of health and does not define what the motion means when it says, in the second paragraph:
When, during the early stages of pregnancy: a qualified medical practitioner ...
What are the early stages of pregnancy? To be defined. And further, when we read:
When during the subsequent stages of pregnancy .. .
What is the subsequent stage? Somebody in my riding explained: The early stages are from the beginning to the middle and the subsequent stages from the middle to the end.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, there was a very important debate in Great Britain recently on a motion to restrict access to abortion to 18 weeks, as opposed to 22 or 23 weeks. The motion was defeated. I am told that in France, women can have an abortion on demand in the first 10 weeks, but that afterwards it is rather difficult. In Canada, there is no limit, but the Government does not say what it means by "earlier stages of pregnancy" and "subsequent stages". No, it leaves that to possible amendments from Members. That is not courageous, nor is it very clear.
July 26, 1988

For example, a Bill could have made it possible to meet women's needs in more than one way. Certainly, it would have had to deal with the question of abortion as such, that is whether abortion should be allowed or not, under what conditions an abortion could be performed, and at what stage of pregnancy. This would have to be clear and explicit in the Bill. Such a Bill would have made it possible to provide alternatives to abortion, like special counselling programs, for example, with professionals who, by giving a pregnant woman psychological support, would make it possible to avoid abortion in some cases, because the woman would at least have other alternatives available to her.
For example, a program could be set up to provide clinics where competent people could give not only women but also families and couples social, cultural or financial support to help them through the difficulties facing them. There is nothing like that now throughout the country. It does exist in some centres, but not everywhere in the country. Such programs might well be successful in some cases and provide less drastic solutions than abortion.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for us to pass judgement on who should authorize an abortion or who should be entitled to have one. It is not an easy decision to make.
If the Government had assumed its responsibilities, it would have presented a Bill, as I said, that would provide a recourse and support from the community, from health professionals, by providing an appropriate, fair, understanding response to the serious needs of women in difficulty; I am sure that worthwhile alternatives could be found.
This problem is not insoluble. It is not necessarily a legal issue or strictly a health issue. It may be a moral, ethical or social issue for some. In Canada, it may also be a matter of whether one lives in a remote region that does not provide access to the same quality of health care as other regions. It is not an insoluble problem, Mr. Speaker; it is just a matter of showing leadership. You must think about it and act.
In 1988, we should think of the whole question of human reproduction; every day, we hear reports of troubling experiments on human life. And abortion is only part of this problem. It is a big issue, I admit, but it must be dealt with and solved quickly in the best interest of all Canadians.
But it is not the only part. We must deal quickly with the matter of in vitro fertilization. Yesterday evening, again, there was a program on the national CBC network about in vitro fertilization. Fertility clinics and genetic manipulation will certainly upset Canadians, men and women. The problem of surrogate mothers must also be considered. Modern technology and medicine now pose a major moral problem for us and we, legislators, must for once take a pro-active role in this.
We cannot afford to wait for the Supreme Court or other courts to throw the ball back to the politicians, to us here in the House of Commons. We must study these issues now and react immediately.
Abortion
There is more and more talk about foetal tissue cultures for transplantation. This poses a serious moral problem. Will foetuses be cultivated only for their use as raw material? Can we in all conscience allow this? Will we have foetus farms, laboratories to grow human tissues and foetuses so that organs like the liver, heart or eyes can be taken from them? That may seem like science fiction, Mr. Speaker, but it is on its way. It has already arrived. We recently saw foetal cells transplanted into the brain of some people suffering from Parkinson's disease, for example. This procedure has already been developed and demonstrated.
The door has also been opened to possible large-scale organ transplants. And, Mr. Speaker, we must ask whether this is a legal question, a medical question or just a social and ethical question. I think that it is most important to discuss it.
I know that this debate does not deal directly with the abortion issue, but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the motion before us will solve nothing, because the problem is much bigger. In this debate we must state whether we are for or against the motion, and I have said clearly where I stand: I am against the motion because it falls far short of my moral or social standards, as I see it, nor does it embody the essential elements of a legislative position.
Mr. Speaker, another reason which calls for legislation rather than a simple motion is that a statute would make it possible to offer a much wider array of options than does a simple motion of principle.
I am one of those who believe that, on ethical and moral grounds, unrestricted abortion, abortion on demand is unacceptable. As I said earlier, there are circumstances where such an option can be justified. This is why I favour abortion when medical evidence indicates that pregnancy may endanger the woman's life. In such cases-and I am not qualified to make the decision-we have to rely on the opinion of the physician or the qualified medical team. Should these health professionals conclude that the mother's life is seriously threatened and recommend an abortion, then I sincerely believe we should allow the procedure.
Finally, there is a last category which I think ought to be accepted, and I referred to this ealier in my remarks. I am talking about cases where pregnancy is the result of criminal or violent behaviour. I am thinking particularly of incidents of rape and incest. From a psychological standpoint, Mr. Speaker, such situations are difficult enough to live through for both the victim and her parents, and I think this psychological trauma justifies ending the pregnancy. A woman who is the victim of such an act of violence should have the right to seek an abortion during the first weeks of pregnancy if that is her decision and, of course, if that option is recommended by health professionals.
In simple terms, Mr. Speaker, that is my position. I am not a lawyer. I did not want to debate Criminal Code Section 251 nor say that it is a legal issue because I do not believe it is a legal issue. It is a matter of ethics with far-reaching socio-

July 26, 1988
Abortion
economic components. It is a personal matter which each of us has to settle as he or she sees fit.
For the record, I wanted to make my position clear. I do not see how I could be more convincing than by saying that I am pro-life, Mr. Speaker. Of course I am. That is how I voted throughout my life. I am not a violent man. I believe that abortion on request is an exaggerated and immoderate approach, therefore a bad option as far as I am concerned. That is a personal position which I am prepared to uphold and defend.


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to participate in this very important debate. I believe that there are only two positions in this debate. Either one is for life or one is against life. Any position in between is pure hypocrisy. The abortion issue, simply put, is black and white. Therefore, I cannot support the Government's motion. From the time of the ancient Greeks until recently, western civilization has condemned abortion and has traditionally upheld and honoured the Hippocratic oath.
A pagan physician, Hippocrates, wrote the oath to serve as a medical and ethical guide for students in roughly 367 B.C. Hippocrates said, and I quote: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner, I will not give to woman a pessary to produce abortion."
Taking the oath has customarily been a part of medical school graduation, but lately the part on abortion has been dropped by many schools. Although Hippocrates lived in a pagan civilization, abortion was unmistakably condemned. One wonders if civilization has really progressed over the last 2,000 years.
Opposition to abortion was reflected almost universally by the world's great religions-Hinduism, Islam, and in ancient Vedic spiritual writings in India. With Judaism, from 1200 B.C., there was a strong tradition of opposition to abortion.
Christianity, at the same it emerged in the Mediterranean area during the 1st century A.D., strongly upheld the censure of abortion as a major moral principle. This prohibition was one of the distinctive behavioural injunctions of the early Christian church. The Christian community became vocal in the 2nd century and emphatically deplored and condemned abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Therefore, it is apparent that all societies, regardless of whether or not they had any religious beliefs, were universally consistent on abortion. Abortion was universally condemned as the taking of life or, simply put, murder.
As our society became more and more technologically advanced, religious beliefs began to wane. Science became the vehicle on which mankind began to rely. History has shown that the more a society becomes advanced the less it relies on
religious and moral teachings. However, in the case of life, science has provided irrefutable evidence that life does begin at conception.
Science tells us that when the sperm and ovum unite, they become a complete genetic package programmed for development into a mature adult. Nothing will be added except time and nutrition. Each stage of development from fertilization to old age is merely a maturing of what is entirely there from the start. To put it in better perspective, the fertilized egg is like a computer chip. A genetic program to produce the person is already there.
Even pro-abortion journals admit that life does begin at conception. An editorial in the pro-abortion journal California Medicine of September, 1970, states, and I quote: "The reverence of each human life has been a keystone of western medicine, and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong, and enhance every human life.
Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing which continues to be socially abhorrent. The rest has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, the human life begins at conception, and it is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices." The pro-abortion journal pulls no punches. It recognizes that the concept that life begins at conception is the tenet in which the majority of the population still believes.
The overwhelming number of abortions are conducted for purely social and economic reasons. There is no thought given to the innocent life which is about to be destroyed. The rationale which the pro-abortionists use to justify this barbaric act is to describe abortion as socially acceptable and as a means for a woman to control her own body. By appealing to the feminist principle of a woman controlling her own body, the true reality of the abortion act is shielded. In fact, we are using the argument of the self to dictate supremacy over everything else. The self is the only thing that matters, an innocent life is only an appendage and the father is merely a participant in an act. It is only when we take time to examine the true facts that a truly rational decision can be reached.
When the law changed in 1969, health became the key word. The generally accepted definition of health by 1973 was that of the World Health Organization. Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
In Canada, physicians gave health unlimited interpretation. Therefore, abortions can be performed for "health" reasons
July 26, 1988

such as interruption of education or career, social embarrassment, sexual preference for a child, and so on. In fact, according to official statistics, 95 per cent of all abortions in the western world are performed on alleged psychiatric grounds. It would seem legitimate to ask how the psychiatrist arrived at the conclusion that having an unwanted child will result in complete psychiatric breakdown.
As a result of this, according to Statistics Canada there were 11,200 abortions in 1970, the first year of legalization. In 1985, the last year for which complete statistics are available, StatsCan reported that the number had risen to 60,956, an increase of over 260 per cent in 15 years. Even more startling is the fact that abortions outnumber live births in some Canadian cities, and there is an increasing number of women having multiple abortions. StatsCan reported that the repeat abortion rate in 1975, women who were having their second or subsequent abortion, was 8.6 per cent; 12.9 per cent in 1978; 18.9 per cent in 1983; and in 1985 it had reached 20.4 per cent.
It is apparent from these statistics that abortion is being used as a method of birth control. Abortion as a means of contraception is probably one of the most reprehensible acts that an individual can commit. In today's society there simply is no excuse for not being aware of the various methods of contraception available. Abortion cheapens the value of life. The ability to terminate a pregnancy with minimum discomfort gives individuals a lax attitude toward the sanctity of life. The greater ease with which abortion is conducted will serve to further desensitize the population into disregarding the value of human life. The more we do that, the more apt we are to inflict more injustices on our society.
Science has now given us the means by which we can tell if a baby is to be born defective, retarded, handicapped, and what sex it will be. Should these individuals be aborted? Do we have the right to play God? I want to read to you a newspaper report of an attempted abortion in 1981 as reported by the Philadelphia Enquirer.
A woman's scream broke the late night quiet and brought two young obstetrical nurses rushing to Room 4456 of the University of Nebraska Medial Centre.
The patient, admitted for an abortion, had been injected thirty hours earlier with a salt solution, which normally kills the fetus and causes the patient to deliver a mass of lifeless tissue, in a process similar to a miscarriage.
This time, though, something had gone wrong. When nurse Marilyn Wilson flicked on the lights and pulled back the covers, she found, instead of a stillborn fetus she'd expected, a live two and one-half pound baby boy, crying and moving his arms and legs there on the bed.
Dismayed, the second nurse, Joanie Fuchs, gathered the squirming infant in loose bed covers, dashed down the corridor and called to the other nurses for help. She did not take the baby to an intensive care nursery, but deposited it instead on the stainless steel drainboard of a sink in the maternity unit's dirty utility room-a large closet where bedpans are emptied and dirty linens stored. Other nurses and a resident doctor gathered and gaped.
Finally, a head nurse telephoned the patient's physician, Doctor C. J. Labenz, at home, apparently waking him. "He told me to leave it where it was" the head nurse testified later, "just to watch it for a few minutes, that it would probably die in a few minutes".
Abortion
This type of incident occurs more than 400 times a year, according to the Centre for Disease Control, and those are just the documented cases.
It is ironic that a criminal proven guilty has more protection under the law than the unborn. Just stop and think about it. The guilty criminal has more protection than an unborn human being today. The unborn are innocent, yet their fate is determined with very little or no consideration at all. Compare the consideration given the unborn to that given a criminal in our justice system and it becomes apparent that something is very wrong with our morality.
Once life has begun it has the right to reach its natural end. By destroying life to ensure one's economic and social success, the human race is losing its honour and dignity. A human race now reaching for the stars must not be allowed to regress to the level where life has only a relative value. The whole existence of mankind has been toward the protection of human life. It represents an ultimate value. Therefore, protection cannot be limited and no distinction can be made between unborn and born life.
During World War II we abhorred the holocaust of the born, and today we must abhor the holocaust of the unborn. Life is sacred in all its stages, thus any attempt to define or legislate the beginning of human life as occurring at some point other than at conception would not be based on either biological or moral fact, but on arbitrarily chosen terms which merely describe stages of the embryological development of the human organism.
Therefore, it must be realized that the personhood of the human being is an intrinsic quality derived from the very fact of his or her existence as a human being. It is not derived from man-made law. Personhood, since it is always present while the human being has life, and is a concomitant of human life, cannot be awarded to, diminished, or withdrawn from any human being by Parliament or any judicial action. As a result, I cannot vote for the government motion and I therefore present an amendment to the motion which will recognize life as the only value which is supreme, and the innocent will be protected from the point of conception onwards. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Pietz): that all the words in the motion after the words "should prohibit the performance of an abortion," be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "While allowing those medical treatments which are necessary to prevent the death of the mother or to remedy a condition that, if left untreated, would cause the death of the mother."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski);: The Hon. Member's amendment will be tabled as agreed.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact and in this parliamentary debate, I am pro-life. In any case, how can anyone be against life? However, contrary to

July 26, 1988
Abortion
those who hold radical positions on both sides of the issue, I have a practical and realistic approach towards this social dilemma which the Members of this Elouse are called upon to resolve.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Government could not introduce a Bill at this point in time. Those who say otherwise have not, to my mind, thought about all the measures which will have to be taken into consideration when drawing up a Bill on abortion. And, in any case, is a possible social consensus on abortion? That is the main issue.
The 282 members of this Elouse are asked to be the Canadian people's conscience. I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not fair, that it is sheer nonsense that a Member of Parliament he or she, in the course of his or her duties, should have to legislate on women's morality. Obviously, I quite appreciate the fact that there should be laws to protect life and that it is the duty of this House to enact rules aimed at guaranteeing the safety and freedom of this country's citizens. From time immemorial, the laws and regulations which govern us have been promulgated by men.
Women have had practically no say in the matter until today, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that people are more concerned about the result than about the reasons for an unwanted pregnancy. Mr. Speaker, when one holds the reins of power, one must be reasonable. After all, to govern is to do what is possible.
I speak as the Member for Argenteuil-Papineau, but my comments on abortion come from the heart of a woman and the mind of a Member of Parliament. I want my constituents to know why I cannot support the demands of the pro-life movement which wants to make abortion illegal, nor those of the pro-choice movement which wants abortion on demand. I am in favour of a realistic approach that takes into account the daily lives of women and mothers, and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of a solution that would go halfway, setting a legal limit of 18 weeks on abortion. Women must exercise their rights within limits that can be scientifically determined. Our technology today is, in any case, able to determine the exact number of weeks of a foetus.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the pro-life position and its enforcement are a paradox. How could the Government enforce regulations arising from an anti-abortion law? If you ask members of pro-life who, I may add, and I want to make this quite clear, take a position that is entirely praiseworthy, if you ask them whether they want a pregnant woman to be thrown into jail, they will answer: Of course not. So we must be realistic. After all, the Government would look pretty silly if it tabled legislation that was unenforceable. These are all aspects which the anti-abortion groups have failed to consider. Abortion has always existed. If women can't get an abortion here, they will go across the border.
Mr. Speaker, abortions carried out by the woman herself or by some charlatan have had, and would have, a very serious impact on fertility. We have heard the horror stories about women who used the services of the worst kind of backroom butchers to obtain an abortion. To allow, within reasonable limits and based on the common sense of the woman involved, access to therapeutic abortions, preceded and followed by psychological care, would minimize the physical and mental side effects for women. Mr. Speaker, one or more abortions may be followed by wanted pregnancies. There are hundred of examples of women who at some time in their lives had an abortion and subsequently gave birth to one or more children. That is why abortions must be carried out under proper conditions. Making abortion illegal would mean going back to the dark ages. It would not reduce the number of abortions, and anyone who says so is sadly mistaken. With good psychological support, couples will learn to take a responsible attitude towards pregnancy.
Mr. Speaker, how does one make the father feel more responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy? Would those who want to make abortion illegal and in so doing, as I was just explaining, take drastic measures, even going so far as to create prisons for pregnant women, agree to punish the man who should have put on a condom before having sex?
The advocates of free choice, for their part, are too radical. Again, it is the duty of sex partners to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies. I find the use of abortion as a means of contraception totally repugnant, especially since taxpayers must contribute to a woman's third, fourth, fifth, sixth abortion, and so on. The positions of the pro-choice movement are too broad and too vague for me to endorse them. One must still have enough common sense and intelligence to realize that there have been abuses and that they would continue if abortion were unlimited.
Mr. Speaker, I can understand the churches' position; it is deeply rooted and laudable. I can tell you this evening that I will not personally feel myself less Catholic tomorrow morning by voting for the Government to submit later a Bill limiting but not banning abortion, because my conscience as an elected representative of the people is not involved but rather the conscience of a woman who will make a decision with her doctor in a definite period of time. As legislators, how can we judge and condemn another person's moral feelings? How can we as legislators claim to improve the people's moral standards? It is impossible. Women have abortions for many reasons. A woman who decides to have an abortion is profoundly unhappy.
Have we in conscience really got to the bottom of these causes? As a society, have we thought of how to remedy the deep problems of women who, as you know, Mr. Speaker, have in the great majority of cases to care for their children after a divorce or separation? The statistics are overwhelming: three quarters of single-parent women-and most single-parent families are headed by women-live below the poverty line and the situation of childless women who have left their parents' or
July 26, 1988

husband's home as a result of family breakdown is hardly any better. Instead of engaging in sterile, illogical debates on abortion, we should try to set policies to really encourage people to have children and to correct the shortcomings of our society. If we want to be honest with ourselves and admit it for once, the present policies do not encourage families to have several children. We build dwellings with only one bedroom. It costs less. For a woman with two, three or four children to use public transport today is quite a feat. Has this problem been thought of?
A number of individuals have made the point that falling birth rates and adoption problems were mainly due to abortion.
Nothing could be farther from the truth in my view! We are now living in 1988, and when a woman brings her pregnancy to term, she keeps her child. It is extremely rare that a woman, in spite of her solitude, her emotional, financial and other problems, chooses to give her child away for adoption. That was done in 1938, not 1988!
Decreasing birth rates are this century's burden. It is my hope that nobody in this House nor even outside will think that women are to blame. We are facing a scary increase in violence against women and children, from men albeit distressed and desperate no doubt, but still from men. Are we considering those abused children, those horror stories we read in the papers?
Would those who would legislate against abortion think for a minute, deep down in their conscience, of those serious problems experienced by women, a large proportion of Canadian women in the native, visible minority and other groups? Again, there are a number of factors involved in falling birth rates, and it is my deepest hope today that provinces will join the Canadian Government in asking for a Royal inquiry on all aspects of the future of families into the 21st Century and on measures that will have to be taken now to promote higher birth rates.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that this Government when preparing the legislation that of necessity will follow the vote on the motion now before us, will reflect the wisdom of Members in this House who reflect the views of their constituents. I have the deep conviction that a very strong consensus will emerge in favour of a middle ground.
Moreover, I urge government Ministers to consider right now, not tomorrow, as a preventive measure, a campaign of information and popular education, and I stress popular, Mr. Speaker, among young people and the general population, and that as a minimum, increased help and financial support will encourage mothers to complete their pregnancy.
Mr. Speaker, when we go back to our constituencies and meet young women who have to care for a young child on a welfare cheque that is hardly one sixteenth of the weekly pay of a Member of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, how can we claim that such a woman can decently live, while sharing the joy of
Abortion
life, bringing up a child under conditions that will necessarily lead to that child growing under conditions that are totally conducive to his or her personal growth?
Mr. Speaker, only then shall we solve for the major part that delicate question of abortion in the interests of Canadians.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very happy to take part in the consideration of the important issue now before the House.
Like my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to object to the Government's past and present handling of this important matter.
Abortion is obviously a very currrent subject much discussed every day in every way, mostly in the media. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) recently said that he did not want an election as long as the House had not settled this important matter, lest the next election become the ideal forum for both schools of thought on this major issue.
I think that statement brings out the significance of the problem. Despite the scope of the discussion and the depth of the issue under review, the Government merely put forward a kind of compromise motion which does not satisfy either side and represents, from what the Government's spokesman is saying, an attempt to take a sense of the House.
In the circumstances, I deplore that systematic refusal to settle or approach the issue head-on so that the Canadian people know once and for all where the Government stands.
As I emphasized before, this is a very important matter. I have been a Member of this House for over nine years and, Mr. Speaker, despite the big problems and major issues that surfaced in those nine years, no other question has given rise to so many responses, meetings, papers and letters in my constituency. I have certainly received several thousand very moving pleas from persons-women in most cases-who, for the first time in their lives, have gone to the trouble of writing to their Member of Parliament to state their preoccupations and their apprehensions concerning this very important issue.
In the course of all these exchanges and experiences it is obvious that I have had to express my views and attitudes on the matter. I do not think that it is possible for any Canadian man or woman to have no opinion on this issue, particularity in view of the fact that those on both sides of the issue have provided so much information and lobbied so powerfully. I therefore believe that in some way or another just about all Canadian men and women have committed themselves one way or the other.
It is an important choice in a person's life, a choice based, to some extent, on personal experience.
As a lawyer, I have had the opportunity over the years to get acquainted with the regulations and the legislation on abortion. As a politician, I have also seen alarming statistics on the

July 26, 1988
Abortion
subject; if I am not mistaken, nearly 100 000 abortions are performed every year in Canada. However, their number varies considerably from one region to another. The access and the criteria also varies considerably. The interpretation of the regulations was very liberal in some places and very conservative in others, and there were places where the matter was just not considered at all. These regulations had tragic repercussions in many ways since they created situations that were totally discriminatory. There were cases where the lady, the young woman who wanted an abortion could get one without any problem or restriction as opposed to other regions, other places where it was definitely impossible and unacceptable to get an abortion, very often even when it was justified.
That is a reality which we must, I think, take into consideration. It is a reality which must be taken into account in any debate like the one we are having in this House.
Here is another reality. I have three sons of whom I am very proud, three sons who have given me and obviously still give me the joys of fatherhood, of family life. I am obviously aware that my view in this matter is somewhat biased, given the fact that my experience of the family unit is not, admittedly, the general rule.
As a practicing lawyer, I have seen young couples who, not being able to have children and knowing that a woman was about to give birth, have asked me to take the necessary steps in order to get a private adoption. These couples were absolutely distressed, absolutely traumatized by their incapacity to have children and were hoping to adopt a child. In the light of these experiences, I have come to the conclusion that I am definitely pro-life, in the sense that I am systematically and staunchly opposed to what could be called abortion on request.
Yet, although I feel somewhat uncomfortable, I must be candid about it and recognize that no matter how much experience or knowledge I may have as a man, there is no way I could describe or define what a woman might go through at a time when beside being pregnant she must face harsh, cruel and painful realities, such as the possible loss of her job. I do not think that a man can understand what a woman goes through in such a situation.
There are circumstances where a woman, for economic reasons, cannot even consider, either directly or indirectly, the possibility of living a reasonably decent life with a child.
Such is also the situation of any young girl who suddenly realizing that she is pregnant is deeply traumatized by the thought that her parents might find out-and I could go on and on like this-Therefore I feel that under these quite particular circumstances, I am not qualified as a man to appreciate what women go through in such circumstances. However, I think that as legislators, we must deal with this issue, and that is why I said at the outset of my remarks that it is unfortunate that we should address this important issue through a simple motion which, really, does not solve anything.
I think that, as lawmakers, we had and still have the obligation to propose to the Canadian public a framework which is more complete and thorough, in order to develop eventually a society where a person faced with such an important decision will not be alone, but will be able to rely on sufficient resources readily available to overlook all the constraints which I listed before.
As a matter of fact, the situation in a great many respects is quite unacceptable, because there is hardly any place where a woman could seek the advice of resource people about the possibility of keeping her child. I feel that, quite the contrary, over the past few years, many women have been using abortion as a means of family planning.
These days it has become a rather simple exercise. I was even told that a young secondary school student could indeed enter the school at 1 p.m. and leave three hours later after having an abortion without her parents being told about it. I suggest that over the years there has been totally unwarranted and intolerable acceptance and that it is incumbent upon us as legislators and Government spokesmen, not to make the decision on behalf of women, for that is their personal choice, but to propose solutions, provide financial resources and do everything we can to defend and support the cause so that people will more readily think in terms of pro-life rather than follow what appears to have been the prevailing trend over the past few years and say not to worry, it is always possible to have an abortion.
Personally, I think it is important to say where I stand on this issue. I feel that in such particular and specific situations as when the health of the mother is at stake, when her health is involved, then we should have no hesitation and let the woman, the mother make up her own mind. In the resolution I refer to a consultation with the attending physician. I am not sure that is the ideal formula, for the very simple reason that there is a danger of reverting to the situation that prevailed some time ago, namely that some have more conscience than others, disparities will exist depending on which province or area you live in, so much so that eventually, for lack of a very specific framework, there will be situations where unfortunately there will be basic disparities or discrimination, under which the well-off can find services that may not necessarily be available in their own areas. I think that specific aspect is of vital importance when discussing this major issue. All Canadian women without exception, in all areas, in all provinces without any exception, should be able to rely on a framework within which they are equal, regardless of their place of origin of their place of residence.
The other aspect, and I think this was the subject of a number of speeches, the fact of becoming pregnant by reason of a criminal act, Mr. Speaker, again is a situation where the mother should have the unequivocal right to decide whether she should continue or stop the child's development.
Mr. Speaker, there is also an important question that eventually will have to be solved in my view, that is the time

IBMilitMl
July 26, 1988

element. Some have proposed 10 weeks, 15 or 20 weeks. I think science is sufficiently advanced to come up, if a date must be set, with a number of weeks, the smallest possible number of weeks so as to lessen the major controversy regarding the beginning of life. I know that in some countries the reference is to 10 weeks, in others 20 weeks. I am told that in the countries where it is 20 weeks, they want to shorten that period and where it is 10 weeks, they want to extend it. But then again, if the Government had really wanted to assume its responsibilities and face this important issue, as the people expected and demanded, it could have put forward a bill including all these elements so that we could have found a common ground which, while not pleasing everybody, would have assured Canadian women of fair and equitable treatment, taking into account of course the North American reality. On the other hand, if we moved towards very strict and restrictive legislation and regulations, a large number of Canadian women would circumvent them by going to places that are a lot more permissive.
During this important debate, I had the opportunity to meet and discuss with a number of representatives, particularly from the Pro-Life movement, with whom I talked a lot. I totally agree with some of their arguments.
My colleague just gave me a document which says in paragraph 4: "The only solution to abortion is adoption. Thousands of couples are waiting to get permission to adopt children." We have heard of all the procedures, problems and long delays such couples must go through before finally being authorized to adopt children. It has been admitted that it could be a very good approach, but it must also be understood that a couple's problem cannot be solved at the expense of the mother. I think a massive effort must be made to encourage more women to complete their pregnancies, to give those couples who want a child, or hope for one as many chances as possible of adopting one. We could not say that men and women who wish to adopt a child will see their problem solved because abortion would be banned from now on. I do not see it as an acceptable way of solving this issue, all the more so since I believe what is required is an effort, and that is where things get very difficult, for greater awareness and enhancing, efforts on ressources, on available services, to be able to correct a course that seems to have started, unfortunately, in the last few years.
I conclude and summarize, Mr. Speaker, by declaring myself as pro-life. My pro-life position is non-exclusive as that demonstrated by some of my colleagues, but pro-life in the hope that regulations will eventually de-criminalize that aspect, that there will be generous consideration of the very specific cases I described earlier, particularly when the health of the mother is at risk, when the pregnancy is the result of a criminal act, cases which, in my opinion, it would be entirely acceptable and reasonable to consider in the regulations the country will adopt eventually.
Abortion


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to be given an opportunity to speak in this debate which is the most important debate, as far as subject matter is concerned, to come before this Parliament. I say that because we are dealing with a life or death situation with respect to abortion. Before getting into the body of my remarks, however, I would like to state my position. We have a motion before us which I cannot support for what I feel are three very important reasons.
First, I cannot support this motion because it does not clearly declare that the unborn is a human being. Second, I cannot support the motion because it does not invoke Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure that any future legislation will be effective in the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada judgment to which some of our Members have already referred. Third, I cannot support this motion because it does not place the burden of proof on those who would snuff out the lives of the unborn by abortion. In my opinion, it is that group which should be required to show that such lives should be ended.
Having said that, let me say that I have already filed with the Clerk of the House an amendment that I hope will be considered. Immediately after the preamble of the motion, I propose that notwithstanding Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such legislation giving pre-eminence to the protection of all life, and recognizing that the foetus is a human being, should prohibit the performance of an abortion except when first, two independent qualified medical practitioners in good faith and on reasonable grounds state that in their opinion the continuation of the pregnancy would, or would likely, endanger the life of the pregnant woman. Second, the termination of such pregnancy is performed by a qualified medical practitioner and, third, the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest 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 and the termination of such pregnancy is performed by a qualified medical practitioner.
I have already fded that suggested amendment with the Chair. Let me remind the House and Hon. Members what this process is all about. The Government has asked us to consider the motion which I have indicated I cannot support, but it fully anticipates that amendments will be made and considered and that in due course the House will pass on, presumably, its amended motion and that will show the Government the sense or mood of the House concerning the question of abortion. I feel that when a free vote is the order of the day, that is a very reasonable approach for the Government to have taken. I am surprised that those spokespeople from the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party are critical of the process. It is rather dismaying that the very act of democracy, the very act of asking Members to voice their opinion before legislation is

July 26, 1988
Abortion
drafted, should so startle the two opposition groups in this House. I hope that the attitude taken by those two opposition Parties will not become, if you like, a common attitude in the House. In short, this debate, prior to the Government, through its Cabinet, drawing up legislation to deal with abortion, is a vital ingredient of what the country would like to see prior to new legislation being introduced.
That leads to the question, as some Members have already indicated, why we need any legislation. In my opinion, the Supreme Court of Canada decision has left this nation in a totally unacceptable position. That decision means today that we have no law, certainly of a criminal nature, touching on the question of abortion. We literally are in a position of having a woman pregnant in the seventh, eighth or even ninth month and, from a criminal standpoint be aborted by the abortionist with no criminal implication.
Let us just step back and think of where we are. I have just said that a child could be in its ninth month and be aborted and there would be no criminal sanction on the abortionist or any party involved. Let the child be born and, of course, the whole weight of our law would come down on the person who would dare kill that child, and rightfully so. Surely the people of Canada do not expect this House to leave that situation unattended.
Let me go further. This afternoon I had an opportunity to listen to the official spokesperson from the Official Opposition and then to the official spokesperson from the New Democratic Party. With respect to the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), I was very disappointed to hear how vague his remarks were. He even went to the point of saying that the Charter of Rights must be upheld over any question of abortion. That was never my understanding of the Charter. I thought that the Charter was to guarantee liberties, freedoms, and certainly to guarantee the sanctity of life itself. To have the official spokesman from the Opposition say that somehow or other the Charter is supreme and that even the question of abortion should never be allowed to alter the provisions of the Charter is inherently wrong.
As far as members of the New Democratic Party are concerned, they have made it very clear that they are virtually unanimous in supporting abortion on demand. On hearing the official spokesperson today for that Party, I thought that there was a coldness, an unbelievable coldness in the remarks concerning the subject we are debating here today.
Let me put my remarks into some type of perspective. It is easy, and Members have already made this reference, to say that there are approximately 60,000 abortions performed each year. The figure trips off our tongues very easily. But let us think of what that really means. Since 1970, for example, if we add up the aggregate abortions to this year, we see that this year is a very bad year. This is the year in which we passed the one million mark in total abortions in the country since 1970-
one million future Canadians snuffed out by the system that we have allowed to develop and have tolerated in Canada.
Again let me put that into perspective. What exactly does one million Canadians mean? It is the entire population of Saskatchewan. It is the entire population of Manitoba. It is more than the entire population of Nova Scotia. We are talking about one million Canadians being wiped out, taken out of our future.
If we want to relate that figure to cities, it is approximately one-half the size of Metropolitan Toronto. It is more than the size of Ottawa-Hull combined. I hope that Hon. Members will try to seize upon the magnitude of what we are talking about. To say simply that 60,000 people in the form of abortions are wiped out is one thing. But let us put that into real terms. Let us put it into a real perspective.
The NDP, and in this I often agree, often speak about the horrors of war, the tragedies, the killing and how we must do all we can to ensure that wars will not break out in the future. Again, let us put this evening's debate into perspective. When we say that 60,518 abortions occurred in 1985, let us relate that to the last war, the Second World War. In that entire five-year period the total fatalities suffered by Canadians was 51,992. In short, in the one year, 1985-and I suggest the figures hold for 1988-we wiped out more than the total fatalities suffered by Canada in World War II. In fact, if we want to add up all the fatalities that suffered by Canadians in wars since the time of Confederation we would see that it is less than 120,000. In short, as a result of abortion in two years alone we killed more future Canadians than have been killed in all the wars in which we have ever engaged as far as troop fatalities are concerned.
I say these things because I feel that sometimes we become clouded. We see it is as some type of an academic idea. What could be more real than the fact that deaths are occurring and the fact that the Parliament of Canada is being asked to somehow condone or even to facilitate these deaths?
When one says that there were over 60,000 abortions performed in 1985, one might ask what the comparison of that figure is with the leading cause of death for the same year. The leading cause of death was heart attack. We find that 58,000 Canadians died of heart attacks in 1985. Through our abortion approach we kill more future Canadians than were wiped out by the number one killer in 1985, heart attacks. The interesting thing to note is that about three-quarters of those heart attacks that occurred in later years occurred in persons over 65 years of age. If we wish to look at the 45-year or older level, we see that the bulk of deaths were as a result of heart attacks. Think of the tragedy. Those people are dying, regrettably in their more senior years, while we are allowing 60,000 other future Canadians to be killed before they even have the opportunity to be born. That is what we are talking about in this debate.
In fact, one could put it this way. As far as an infant is concerned, from its point of conception until its ultimate death
July 26, 1988

the most tricky period that it will go through is in trying to avoid the hands of the abortionist. At the present time there is one chance in six that that infant will be wiped out before it leaves the womb of its mother. That is what we are dealing with in this debate. That is what was being permitted prior to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. One in six pregnancies ends in abortion.
Let me put that another way. If from the point of conception through to death is the most difficult period, what happens if a child is lucky enough to be born? He's away to the races. If he is a male his life expectancy is 73 years of age. If she is a female her life expectancy is 80 years of age. I ask Hon. Members to think of how critical this debate is. What we are really talking about is will we preserve a system wherein up to the point of birth a person can be killed but upon birth their life expectancy is from 73 years of age to 80 years of age. If anything happens to them, if there is a murder or other type of mortality, the person responsible will pay with a very severe criminal sentence. That is what we are talking about. I would hope that, when we weigh the pros and cons on this question, we come down on the side of the unborn.
In giving my reasons why I cannot support the motion before us, I have said that I do so partly because I feel the onus should be on those who want to perpetuate the abortion system to put the case through Parliament to the Government that we stand for the unborn and we want the unborn protected. I say that because when Cabinet considers whatever draft legislation may be forthcoming there will not be any unborn able to speak at that Cabinet session. It is up to this House to make it loud and clear that we feel there must be a presumption in favour of the unborn. To do that, let me come to a second reason.
I said that I disagreed with the motion because it did not use the Section 33 notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Any meaningful abortion legislation that may be decided upon by the Government must include that notwithstanding clause to be meaningful in the context of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. I see nothing wrong with suggesting that that clause should be utilized first. Why was it put in if it was never to be utilized? If it was put in to deliberately ensure that there is that escape valve, when would one want to use it when it is a question of life or death? In commenting at that time concerning the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights, Mr. Alan Borovoy, legal counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, is reported in the Canadian Press to have stated:
Canada at the moment is a parliamentary democracy in which the will of Parliament is supreme. If there were no notwithstandings in the proposed Constitution, this supremacy would shift to the judges who would decide whether or not a law offended the Constitution.
By making it legally possible but politically difficult to override the Charter, they have married the two notions ... The result is a strong Charter with an escape valve for the legislatures.
That is counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's comment on the justification of the notwithstanding clause. I
Abortion
am suggesting that it is now time for we politicians to take the difficult course of saying that this is an instance when that notwithstanding clause must be invoked to ensure that the lives of future children are not snuffed out even before they are born.
Let me touch on another question. What is the mood in the country? I can tell you that I would not be making the remarks that I am tonight without consulting. I feel in my capacity as representative for York-Peel I must particularly consult with my constituents. In a poll of those responding with an opinion, 69 per cent say that they believe there should be restrictions on abortion. Eighty-one per cent say that those restrictions should apply if the life of the mother is endangered physically by the continuation of the pregnancy. This is one reason why I have included in my suggested draft that that be a ground for abortion.
I would also like to point out in dealing with the question of the Charter of Rights that 53 per cent of those responding to the question stated that they felt the Charter of Rights must protect the unborn, and I read that that they believe the notwithstanding clause that I am suggesting be used in this motion should indeed be used. It has already been commented on. Certain religious groups have made comments concerning this matter. I have received, as many Members have, undoubtedly, representations from religious groups. Some are prochoice and some are pro-life. One of the most meaningful representations I received was from the Salvation Army. In a letter from Commissioner Will Pratt he stated:
The century-old experience of The Salvation Army through its Women's Social Services has been that abortion is not the panacea imagined by a woman regretting a pregnancy.
Usually the long-term effects on the mind and spirit of a woman who does abort are harmful. It is not unusual for a girl deliberately to become pregnant again after abortion through experiencing guilt at having "murdered my baby". Carrying the fetus to term is almost always in the best interests of the mother, her family, and society as a whole. However, where rape or incest occurred, the mental health of the mother could be a determining factor, and we believe such exceptions are covered by the clause-
-to which they have referred. That is why I included that provision, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, perhaps the most disturbing aspects of what we are discussing are not only that the total number of abortions in this country has risen from 11,000 in 1970 to a current 60,000 per year, but we find the startling fact that persons having an abortion after one abortion has now doubled. The ratio of those who are having two abortions has doubled since 1975; and most alarmingly those who are having two, three, four, and five abortions has gone up fourfold since 1975. Surely when we are experiencing that type of situation it is time that we send, through this motion, a clear message to our Government that we want a pro-life, a sympathetic piece of legislation for the unborn. That is what the House has in my suggested amendment.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when we have to resort to debate on an issue as

July 26, 1988
Abortion
sensitive as abortion, but I fear not having any legislation in place at all. The situation is reaching a crisis level, especially in British Columbia, but still there are those who shout for greater access and say that they have to go across the border to have an abortion.
It is a real tragedy when a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, whether or not she is married. Where can she turn for guidance, for help, and for the right direction? Are there agencies in place that will help her and tell her the options? It is this that must be addressed as we go into this debate.
In my opinion the motion before us, alone and by itself, is not satisfactory, and I will speak further on it in my address on the amendment that I believe should be put in place to correct the approach of the motion.
The statistics tell the story. Since 1969 the number of abortions authorized under Section 18 of the Criminal Code increased yearly with the exceptions of 1981, 1983, 1985. The abortion rate per 100 live births remained steady at 16.5 deaths in 1985 and 1984, and then dropped to 16.2 in 1985. For the Province of British Columbia, the rate was the highest in Canada. There were 26.1 abortions per live births or a figure of 11,264. For every 100 live births there were 26 abortions in British Columbia. In 1985 from Statistics Canada figures we see that 89 per cent of abortions that were performed were performed before 13 weeks of pregnancy. In 1985 that represented 54,226 abortions of a total of 60,900 for that year. A further 4,685 abortions were performed between the thirteenth and sixteenth week gestation, while 1,831 abortions were performed between the seventeenth and twentieth weeks. Therefore, one can see that the main motion will have little or no effect on these statistics.
I am sorry to say that repeat abortions have risen dramatically over the last 10 years on the national level. In 1975, 8.6 per cent of all the women who had abortions were repeats. In 1985, the figure was 20.3 per cent of all the abortions. In fact, more women were repeaters in 1985 than the total of all the officially recorded abortions in 1970. In British Columbia, 25 per cent of all the abortions performed are repeats. In case you are not sure of what that means, it means that this is the woman's second abortion, or at least the second, and could be the third or fourth.
The word "therapeutic" has been tossed around quite a bit during all of the previous discussion on abortion, and I thought it would be worth while to find its meaning in the dictionary. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, it is defined as "the branch of medicine concerned with the treatment of disease and the action of remedial agents in disease or health". With this in mind, pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not therapeutic. It heals no disease but rather kills a human being.
You may ask, why do I support the protection of the unborn? I believe that if you accept the sanctity of life, it is impossible to avoid the fact that, no matter how a child is conceived or what kind of life he or she will have, that life should be protected.
Is the unborn child a human being with equal rights? I think so and if that is the case, laws should always seek to protect that life. We should be more concerned with the saving of the unborn child's life than with making it easier, safer and cheaper for those who seek to end it.
Those who believe that the woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body must also say to themselves that if she has control in this aspect, should she not also have the control of what is required to prevent the pregnancy in the first place, whether that be making sure that she has the proper birth control or whatever? Our society does not allow individuals complete control over their own bodies. Laws prohibit taking drugs, drinking alcohol before a certain age, and prostitution, just to mention some of the things that our laws prevent us from endeavouring to do.
We all value our rights to free choice, our vocation, our religion, our goals in life. Genuine freedom, however, does not give us the right to trample the human rights of others.
You may ask me, are you not trying to impose your morals on others? I really do not think so. It is important to recognize that every basic law which governs our lives is an expression of morality. The point is that many of our laws are based on morality and much of that morality is based on Judaeo-Christian ethics. Those who seek to change abortion laws are legislating morality, but so were those who sought to legalize abortion back in the sixties.
What if the mother's life is endangered by pregnancy? You cannot blame the mother for choosing her life over the child's. This is an act of self-defence, not murder. This goes back to when I talked about therapeutic. I see no inconsistency with saying that the life of the mother must have a pre-emptive role over the life of the unborn but, only in serious, life-threatening situations. These do not happen very often.
The unborn child is not like an arm, a leg or an appendix. Though they are dependent on their mothers, unborn children are complete, separate entities.
Let me give some examples: The baby can be male and the mother is female. The mother and the baby can have two different blood types and these can even be incompatible. The mother can be fair and the baby dark-complexioned. The umbilical cord and placenta belong to the baby. They are not part of the mother's body.
Why do some people believe that the unborn child does not become a human being until it is delivered? Do they not recognize that even at his earliest development this child is just at one special stage in a whole series of steps that will eventually lead to old age? The difference lies in the process of

July 26, 1988

maturing and aging-in developing. We must see the unborn child as a human being.
Should every child not be a wanted child, you may ask. This makes the incorrect assumption that unless a child is wanted by the parent, they are not wanted, period. Simply to be unwanted becomes then a capital offence. The child itself, though, must always retain his or her right to continue living. A child is not a piece of property. There are so many couples trying to adopt children that many agencies cannot take any more names. Yet, 60,000 babies are aborted each year. It is a crying shame.
You may ask the question, do not unwanted pregnancies become abused children? Abortion has not solved the problem of battered children. In fact, since abortion has become commonplace, child abuse has increased by at least 500 per cent. These facts show that in more cases it is the so-called wanted children that are abused.
I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that guidance must be given to the woman who finds herself in the situation of being pregnant and not really wanting her baby. I believe that the medical profession has a role to play in this, one that should be giving all clients the relevant information regarding abortion, including such things as the true nature of the procedure, the nature and development of the life to be terminated, the risks to the client both during and after the abortion.
Many women, when they understand what abortion really is, the risks associated with it and the actual nature and development of the life, would look for alternatives. Are we giving them this information? Such disclosures by the medical society would lead to greater education, encouraged scientific knowledge on the abortion question, and place the onus directly on the people involved. Those who practice abortion must be held responsible for its consequences. Even the United Nations has a declaration of the rights of the child. This reads that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after, birth".
There is an alarming and disturbing amount of evidence, and it is growing, that the post-abortion experience may be even more traumatic than the pre-abortion period of decisionmaking. We must not forget that every baby who dies in an abortion has a whole family whose lives are connected with that baby: the grandparents, the aunts, uncles, cousins, sisters, brothers. Society is also closely linked with that baby. For instance, within the last year the B.C. Ministry of Social Services conducted the province's first-ever apprehension of a foetus. The seizure occurred after a woman, 36 weeks pregnant, told doctors at the Vancouver Grace Hospital that she did not intend to consent to medical treatment for her child after it was born.
The doctors used the word "child" when referring to the foetus and the social worker conferred with a supervisor and a
Abortion
superintendent, and all three of them agreed that the child should be apprehended.
This shows us that society is definitely involved in one single case, and this is not an isolated case. In Ontario, a judge ordered a 38 week old foetus to be made a ward of the Belleville Children's Aid Society after its mother, who planned to give birth in an underground parking lot, refused medical treatment. I think these are landmark cases.
I commend the churches and those organizations which have sought to help by giving direction for what they deemed to be right. I would like to acknowledge the material that was sent to each Member of Parliament by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Salvation Army, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, the Coalition for Family Values, and the Council of Christian Reformed Churches in Canada. These organizations have endeavoured to help give us direction as to how we might proceed on this very, very important question.
Many people today have opted for a self-serving role in society because their vision of life is limited and based on selfish value systems. Today, we, as leaders, are struggling to give leadership to a society which seeks to do what is right in its eyes.
What do we do? I have already said that there is a need for agencies and places that will help in a time of crisis. When an unwanted pregnancy occurs, the Government has to help these agencies in these circumstances. Many churches are now coming to the assistance of people who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. One organization which I have already mentioned, the Salvation Army, has been at the forefront of this practice for many, many years. They must be commended and they need to be copied on what they have done.
How do we deal with this? How do we try to find the balance between making sure that the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn are kept in proper perspective when we try to put forward legislation?
I would like to support at this time the amendment tabled by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), which I feel will go a long way to reach that balance, and the personage of the woman and the personage of the unborn will be clearly recognized. I thank you for this opportunity of putting my thoughts on the record and to let the people of Fraser Valley East know where their Member stands on this very important issue, and to thank the 2,500 people of Fraser Valley East who have written to me and substantially backed me on the statement that I have made tonight.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all of us will agree that abortion is a very emotional, ethical, and moral issue. The differing views in this House reflect the Canadian pluralistic society, although not in

July 26, 1988
Abortion
proportion to the general public. I only wish this debate could have included many more young men, and women of childbearing age, because they are the people directly affected and they are not represented adequately in this debate.
While I think we must respect each other's differing views, I cannot condone anyone forcing their views on another person. This is why I believe in choice. For women, a decision regarding termination of an unwanted pregnancy is a very difficult moral issue as well as a personal health matter. I know of no one, man or woman, who favours abortion. So why are some women and young girls forced to consider abortion? Usually it is because contraception has been ineffective or because no method of birth control was used by either the man or woman. In some cases, the high incidence of teenage pregnancies, and we know of increasing numbers of 13 and 14 year old girls who have become pregnant, may be because they are ignorant about sex and birth control. Very often they are afraid to tell their parents that they are pregnant. Some do not even know until several months later. Often, I am sure, if they think it through, they would be aware that they cannot care for a child. Perhaps their parents will decide and advise them their lives could be ruined, so they agree to an abortion.
Many women who seek abortions are single, with no partner to share the responsibility, financially or as a parent. The sex partner often takes no responsibility for contraception. Men usually think this is a woman's responsibility, or perhaps they do not even care. More often than not, the man takes off, leaving the woman alone to either consider the painful decision of seeking an abortion or to care for their child with no support from the father. There are many women in this situation and I do not think we can stand in judgment on them when they choose an abortion.
Still other women may be married with many financial, health and family reasons for not wanting another child. This is true of men also. One woman that I know very well had four children, including twins. The children were very young. At the same time she had an alcoholic husband. She told me how desperate she was 20 years ago when she found out she was pregnant again. Even 20 years later she was really upset talking about it. She was so desperate that she decided to go through the agony of using a back street abortionist, there being no legal abortions at that time. It was either that or suicide, she said. So at great risk to herself she chose the abortionist, and she had many complications as a result.
Over the years this woman and many of her sisters in the women's movement have worked very hard to be sure that their daughters will not have to face this kind of tragedy in similar circumstances. They have worked together to ensure that legal medical abortions are accessible and based on the decision of the woman in consultation with her doctor.
The public has become much more liberal in its attitude toward choice. In a 1988 Gallup poll, 69 per cent of Canadians agreed that "the decision whether to have an abortion should rest with the woman in consultation with her physician". The
Canadian Medical Association, a fairly conservative group, has also taken this position. So has the United Church of Canada.
The Supreme Court decision in the Morgentaler case judged previous legislation under the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional since therapeutic abortion committees delayed procedures, denied access, and threatened the security of the person. The majority of judges acknowledged the right of a woman and her doctor to choice in the earlier stages of pregnancy. In the later stages, they acknowledged the importance of also protecting the foetus.
I think most women, and men also, who support choice would not disagree with those principles, but many object very strenuously to recriminalizing abortion under the Criminal Code, Imposing criminal sanctions against women and physicians is no solution. Statistics show that most abortions are performed in the first trimester, long before a foetus is viable. I would like to give several facts which I received from the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League to clarify certain misinformation which has been circulated.
First, women do not approach abortion as a means of birth control. As Doctor Marian Powell's 1987 study showed, the majority of girls and women seeking abortion become pregnant while using contraception. Despite public perception, contraceptives are not 100 per cent effective, nor are they easily available, especially for the poor, the young, or people in isolated or rural areas.
Second, women do not have abortions for convenience or for frivolous reasons. On the contrary, women choose abortion because they take the responsibilities of motherhood seriously. Women realize how important the timing and number of children can be to the well-being of their families.
Third, women who want to have abortions want to have them as early in the pregnancy as possible, as do the doctors who perform them. Some 89 per cent of all abortions in Canada are performed by the twelfth week of pregnancy, and 99.6 per cent are performed by the twentieth week. Reduction in the legal impediments to access results in fewer delays and earlier abortions.
Prevention of unwanted pregnancies and earlier access to medical abortions are needed rather than criminal sanctions. It is interesting that countries with tough criminal prohibition have not reduced the number of abortions. In Brazil, where abortions are prohibited, over one million illegal abortions were performed in one year and many deaths resulted. Criminal prohibitions did not prevent or reduce abortions.
It is also interesting that the incidence of abortions in Quebec decreased during the period when the Criminal Code was ignored and abortions were available through community clinics. There is no evidence during the past six months, when we have not had any law, that abortions have increased. Therefore, why do we need Criminal Code legislation? We all
July 26, 1988

want to reduce the need for abortion, but tough criminal sanctions will not do it.
One of the saddest aspects of the abortion debate, particularly on the part of those who are anti-choice, is the fact that no attention is given to prevention. The federal Government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) have consistently refused to support positive sexuality programs and family planning. We support it for Third World countries through the UN but we do not support it in our own country.
The Conservative Government and the previous Liberal Government both cut back on funding to Planned Parenthood, which works hard at prevention and has proposed particular programs targeted at reducing unwanted pregnancies in young teenagers. It has published information in the national media. You may have seen a big ad entitled "Five Ways to Prevent Abortion and One Way That Won't". They recognized that all Canadians want to see the need for abortion reduced. This can be achieved by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. Making abortions illegal will not work. It never has. Whenever governments have made abortions illegal, it has not stopped them.
Planned Parenthood had a recent campaign which advocated the following five ways to prevent abortion. First, ensure that all Canadians have access to contraception and family planning services. Second, ensure that all young Canadians have access to sexual health education. Third, increase the involvement of men in preventing unintended pregnancies. Fourth, increase government support of research into new and safer methods of contraception and, fifth, make Canada friendlier to children. Planned Parenthood studies support the premise that young people with high levels of self-esteem are the least likely to compromise their futures by taking the risk of unintended pregnancies. Thousands of Canadians across Canada have signed petitions in response to these proposals which I think make eminent good sense.
The one way that will not work in reducing abortions is to outlaw abortion and to have tough criminal sanctions. This will not prevent unwanted pregnancies or reduce the number of abortions. It will make women and doctors criminals and force back street abortions in some cases. It ignores the dignity and the right of women to make their own decisions for themselves and their families. It ignores the reality of statistics which show that women want early abortions and doctors do not perform late abortions except in extremely exceptional circumstances. It also ignores the fact that despite tough criminal sanctions in some countries, desperate women will still seek abortions, largely because of economic and social situations that are intolerable and are injurious to health and well-being.
Some have said that the debate on abortion is obsolete in view of the changing reproductive technologies including in
Abortion
vitro fertilization, surrogate parenthood, the use of foetal tissue and gender selection techniques, all very serious moral and ethical issues that society must consider and perhaps regulate. Our Party has recommended support for a Royal commission on reproductive technologies composed of at least 50 per cent women to look into this matter and to make recommendations. Scientists and physicians are also asking for directions on these matters.
The NDP supports a policy of choice which allows women to make a personal health decision in consultation with their doctors. We respect our colleagues and members of our caucus and Party who hold different views on this issue. They have the right to express their opinions. Choice does not mean that one favours abortion. I hope no one favours abortion. Choice means that a pregnant woman must have access to a whole range of options. She must have the finances and the emotional support to raise a child. The Government has an obligation to provide adequate income assistance and community support.
Second, men must take much greater responsibility for preventing pregnancies, for planning families and for sharing parenting. Third, there must be parental leave, access to adequate, affordable quality child care. We must eliminate child poverty and give more support to single parents, including affordable housing.
Fourth, adoption is another option which must be available to people. Fifth, in addition to all these options, a woman who is pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy must have ready access to a safe medical abortion with adequate pre- and postabortion counselling if this is her decision. Free abortions must be available in all provinces and territories in Canada and must be covered by the insurance programs of the Canada Health Act. Public clinics should be encouraged.
In closing, I would like to say that I must oppose this motion. As my colleague said earlier, we object to it for procedural reasons and for technical reasons. We think it is poorly phrased and not adequate. I oppose it particularly because it calls for the recriminalization of a matter which I believe should be a medical question involving a personal decision between a woman and her doctor.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we are here debating an issue of national importance such as few debates include. In fact, it is an inter-generational debate. We are discussing values and attitudes that we will share with our children and our grandchildren and that we will pass on from generation to generation. We are in fact examining what kind of people we are, what kind of a society we are and what shape we want our society to be in years to come. It is probably one of the most futuristic debates we could hold in this House. It is of incredible importance.
I might add in response to the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) that we are not here to sit in judgment over those who are facing unwanted or unplanned pregnancies.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
Surely we have grown to the point where we do not do that any longer. We are here to embrace those who are faced with frustrations, but we cannot run away and we cannot present illusions to today's people or to future generations. We must face this squarely, be realistic, look at the repercussions and at the inheritance we want to pass on to future generations.
We do so, Sir, with some urging from the Supreme Court itself. Chief Justice Dickson has said:
Similarly, Parliament must be given room to design an appropriate administrative and procedural structure for bringing into operation a particular defence to criminal liability.
On page 35 of his judgment, he said:
Simply put, assuming Parliament can act, it must do so properly.
On page 37, he said:
I have no difficulty in concluding that the objective of s. 251 as a whole, namely, to balance the competing interests identified by Parliament, is sufficiently important to meet the requirements of the first step in the 'Oakes' inquiry under s.l.
On page 38, he said:
Like Beetz and Wilson JJ., I agree that protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid governmental objective. It follows that balancing these interests, with the lives and health of women a major factor, is clearly an important governmental objective.
Then he went one step further. On page 39, he said:
State protection of foetal interests may well be deserving of constitutional recognition under s. 1.
There he refers to Section 1 of the Charter. Certainly we have the urging of the Supreme Court on our side. The Supreme Court is urging us to debate this thoroughly and to pass on to future generations the values that we think are important for the preservation of our way of life.
When we debate this issue, we are in fact debating the role of law. It is the law which is our guidance mechanism today. Society has lost many of the institutions of support that historically have given us the moral and ethical standards by which we could guide our lives. We have lost those moorings. By and large, society has now rejected regular church participation. Schools are preaching irrelevance, moral relevance and situational ethics. There is no anchor. There are no absolutes which can guide us any longer.
For many people, the only thing we have left to give us guidance is the law. Justice Dickson said on page 32 of his judgment:
The criminal law is a very special form of governmental regulation, for it seeks to express our society's collective disapprobation of certain acts and omissions.
For those who have no moorings, no ethical guidance mechanisms, no moral guidance mechanisms left, the only thing left is the law. Therefore, as we debate the law as we would like to see it today, we have to be especially careful about how we deliberate, about what we choose as our values and about what we think is important. For most people the law is the last guidepost of morality. It is the plumb line that tells
them what is right and wrong. While the law is designed to put before us the limits of behaviour that we find acceptable, for many people it is also the maximum, it is both minimum and maximum. Since we have diminished the use of the institutions we have to be careful of the law.
While the law describes limits it does not describe "ought-ness". It may describe how we can behave, how we are allowed to behave, but it never describes how we ought to behave. That sense of "oughtness" has melted away. For that reason we have to be very careful of how we define our law today.
The law itself has become for us the expression of our values, the protection of what we treasure, an expression of what we ought to be as well as the prohibitions of what we would design for our society in order to protect what we treasure.
That is why I support what is popularly called Option A, the amendment put forward by the Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer). That amendment allows us to circumscribe behaviour in a way which is reasonable. It protects what we cherish, namely, life. It provides access to abortion for those who really need abortion, and it makes a statement about life that is important to us. I commend to Members the speech made by the Member for Kitchener in which he described what we value in our society.
There is no doubt that this measure will be challenged in court. Whatever law is passed by this Parliament is going to be challenged. Whatever group is on the other side of the legislation will be certain to challenge it. However, I am convinced that the measures which this amendment provides for can withstand a court challenge. It is defensible before the Supreme Court. It is not enough for me to say that I believe that, because we are all entitled to opinions. We must be able to establish why we believe that and do so on a basis of argument and fact.
Because I am not a lawyer and do not have the advantage of a constitutional background, I took the trouble to engage a constitutional expert who has the respect of the entire legal community of Canada, has argued before the Supreme Court on a number of occasions, and is highly regarded there. I engaged the services of Mr. Goldie of the Firm of Russell & DuMoulin. I would like to read to Members the statements he has made regarding such a motion as this. He said:
Parliament has a legitimate constitutional interest in the protection of the foetus.
That is his conclusion based on his study of the Supreme Court decision. He goes on to say:
In recognition of this interest, Parliament could restrict abortions to situations where the life or health (including psychological help) of the pregnant woman was threatened.
Parliament could adopt a standard with respect to the condition threatening the life or health of the pregnant woman which required some independent medical opinion.
July 26, 1988

I will give copies of this to Members in order that they can read it for themselves. He says:
Only one Judge expressly holds that Parliament cannot place any restrictions on abortions performed in the first trimester of pregnancy, except possibly that the woman's decision be taken after consultation with her physician. The two dissenting Judges base their dissent on their conclusion that the Charter does not protect the woman's right to terminate pregnancy at will. A standard, therefore, permitting abortions on request in the first trimester would in all likelihood be subject to constitutional challenge on the basis of Parliament's failure to balance the competing interests of the pregnant woman and the foetus. The Court has not ruled on this.
Therefore, I contend that the motion before us submitted as a basis for debate will not withstand a Charter challenge, if for no other reason than it is ultimately very arbitrary. What, in the name of common sense, could lead us to conclude that a woman who is pregnant and seeks an abortion at the sixteenth week is not committing a criminal offence, but if she goes into the seventeenth week she is a criminal? What could be more arbitrary than that? Putting it the other way, how could we make a law which says that a child is safe during the seventeenth week of pregnancy but not in the sixteenth? What could we be more arbitrary than that? The Supreme Court, in its judgment said over and over again that if the law is going to be fair it cannot be arbitrary, it must applied throughout Canada in the same way, it must be applied to all people in the same way, and it cannot be arbitrary.
I resist that motion on the basis of its arbitrariness whereas the motion standing in the name of the Member for Kitchener deals with the arbitrariness of the law. I support that motion, second, because it preserves the values important to our society.
I have already mentioned the value of life. I come from a province in which there are four live births for each one abortion, a ratio of four to one. That says something about our attitude toward life and our attitude toward society. Do we want to be judged by future generations on such an expression?
I want to leave Members with an observation by the eminent French historian sociologist Jacques Ellul who made some very perceptive observations about life. In a book entitled The Betrayal of the West he said:
Reason combined with control leads to coherence. When the individual wins his freedom from the social body and wants to be free in the face of... others, he runs the great risk of incoherence ... If a relationship is to be authentic, the other must be able to rely on the continuity of my behaviour, for instance, and know that he can expect certain kinds of words of help or refusals from me. Without such continuity a relationship becomes impossible ...
Coherence enables me to regard my commitments to others as durable. Marriage or a contract are not mere external formalities; they are meant to be declarations of intentions that are firm and fully accepted.
Only then will I succeed in not becoming the inconstant prey of circumstances. Inconstancy in relations between the sexes is surely not an advance in freedom, but a withdrawal from true personhood, for it indicates the inability to resist circumstances and the impulse of the moment. Just think of the countless novels since Madame, Bovary that have justified adultery and a way of life contrary to "bourgeois marriage". What do we find in them? Everything is the outcome of circumstances; a delightful evening, a ball etc., etc., throw people into one another's arms, people who want the marvelous
Abortion
experience of "free" love, unhindered by the conventions of the kind of
marriage society will accept. But such free love is in fact no better than the
marriage it rejects-
The point is that we all have contracts with each other. When two people engage in a sexual union there is a contract between those two people. Witness the pithy, terrible jokes about life: "Will you love me tomorrow?" Everyone hates to be jilted. There is a contract between two people. When that sexual union creates another person, there is another contract between the two people and a new individual. That new person is depending on the fulfilment of that contract for life. Society recognizes that.
As Mother Theresa said in Vancouver, when a woman has an abortion she commits murder twice, first she kills a child then she kills her conscience. Even Paul Anka recognized the contract in that song which was popular two years ago, Having My Baby. He said: "You could have swept it from you but you didn't do it". You see, there was a contract between two people.
If our society is going to maintain any kind of coherence, if people are to be able to depend on relationships in which there is a contract between two people, we have to depend on it in a sexual union and in a pregnancy contract because we depend on one another.
Third, I support that motion because it is the most compassionate. There is no doubt that we tend to be very flippant about this. But we need to enter into the world of the people who see themselves "in trouble". We need to walk alongside that teenage girl who is unexpectedly pregnant and is in distress because society might reject her, her parents might reject her or her boyfriend might reject her. We, as individuals, and our society need to learn to walk alongside those people and embrace them, care for them, provide for them support mechanisms that will allow them to enter into an enduring relationship with a life they are creating. We are thankfully beginning to do that.
Is it not significant that yesterday we celebrated the tenth anniversary of Louise Brown, the first test tube baby. I recall the outpouring of hunger for parenthood that took place the day after she was born. The day after Louise Brown was born, around the world there were 60,000 applications for in vitro fertilization.
Think of that hunger for parenthood. Why is it necessary to abort when there are countless thousands of couples across Canada who are saying: "We want to be loving and caring parents".
I think it is significant that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) yesterday tabled provisions that would create in our society new levels of child care that would allow people who are facing an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy another avenue of help. It may not be the answer for everyone because I think all of us believe that children grow up best and

July 26, 1988
Abortion
do best in the home. That is the most natural place for them to be, but if that is not possible we have to find other ways of doing it.
We all know that there are better and more fulfilling ways of facing life than through an abortion. But we as a society need to care for them.
For over 100 years the Salvation Army has cared for young mothers who found themselves in distress. Now, having built a chain of hospitals across Canada to help young ladies who are to become mothers, they cannot fill these hospitals with mothers for that purpose. Is it a sign of our health, of our social and spiritual and ethical health that when we have support mechanisms out there to help people like this they get counselling that diverts them from it and counsels an abortion rather than a delivery? Is that a sign of our health?
Why should we deny charitable organizations like the Salvation Army that way of ministering to our society?
I commend to Members the motion that was put forward by the Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) because I believe it fulfils the requirements that the Supreme Court has already strongly suggested it would look for in any kind of legislation. I ask them to resist the lure of thinking that a gestational approach is actually a solution because that motion is nothing but abortion on demand and there is no security of the person in that.
I say to Hon. Members: We need to look for hope, and look at the exuberance of life. Where there is distress and depression, we need to embrace and hold up those people who are in distress and provide hope for them so that this generation and succeeding generations can look to us as those who have saved a generation.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to echo the comments made by my colleague, the Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). This is probably one of the most important debates to be held in the House of Commons since the constitutional debate. At that time I stood up and voted against the Constitution simply because there was no specified protection in that piece of legislation for the unborn child.
Certainly it is the responsibility of society to protect the unborn, for if society will not do it, who will? The unborn have rights, and that is why this debate is so important.
Part of the problem may be due to a breakdown in our society. While there are probably many causes for that breakdown, one may be due to the fact that people have so much time on their hands in this technological age. I am not sure that we are using that time as we should. When I grew up we had chores to do that did not give us the time nor money that people have today.
We must impress upon society that the abortion question is a problem with which we all must deal. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) said she wished there were
more young people taking part in this debate. The last person I spoke to before I came into the House was a 22-year old lady who advised me about what I should say and how. She told me what she wanted to convey and that is why I am speaking today on behalf of my constituents. They expect it of me.
At a Mass on Sunday, the priest recommended to his congregation that they get in touch with me to make sure that I was here to represent their views. That is what I am attempting to do now.
We all must recognize that we are part of the process and cannot escape it. Certainly we are our brother's keeper, our sister's keeper and our daughter's keeper. We must accept the responsibility to give help where it is required.
I want to refer to an article in the Red Deer Advocate on Saturday, July 2, 1988. The column is called "A Closer Look", and the headline of the article is: "Abortion Trauma Entwines Itself in Women's Lives". It is written by Valerie Starno, a freelance writer and a former correspondent for the Daily Interlake in Kalispell, Montana.
One of the problems we possibly have is the fact that sometimes women think this is only their problem. I do not see it that way. I think it is a problem for all of us. We have to accept the responsibility. Perhaps it is because of a lack of discipline in our society, perhaps it is because of a lack of restraint, perhaps a lack of supervision. There could be multiple reasons why we have this problem to deal with. I would like to put this news story on the record:
Five months have passed since the Supreme Court of Canada declared federal abortion laws unconstitutional.
Since the Jan. 28 decision there has been intense debate, most of which has focused on the rights of the woman and the unborn child. An important aspect of the abortion issue which has received less consideration is the effect of abortion on women and society. Yet this aspect surely deserves attention for there is increasing evidence that abortion may be contributing to a plethora of personal and social problems.
According to Tanya Hughson, national co-ordinating director of the Abortion Outreach Centre in Calgary, 75 per cent of the centre's 150 monthly calls are directly related to "post-abortion trauma" counselling.
Hughson describes the trauma as, "sustained emotional denial which produces a variety of physical and emotional responses". She likened it to the clinically recognized Vietnam disorder, which has produced similar symptoms among many Vietnam combat veterans. The basis for post-abortion trauma appears to be the act (abortion), regardless of the woman's personal feelings of right and wrong and independent of society's values.
She said some of the more severe manifestations of the trauma include depression, suicide attempts, chemical dependencies, child abuse and multiple abortions. Hughson's remarks were made during a presentation to 1,200 women attending a meeting with Elaine McCoy, minister of women's issues, May 5 in Edmonton.
The volunteer-run centre is known nationally and has a 24 hour crisis telephone line to provide anonymity and easy access to counselling, Hughson said. The centre is privately funded.
The reason I want to put this on record is the fact that this is women speaking.

y /i ;
July 26, 1988

At a Red Deer College Nursing Association forum on abortion held earlier this year, another woman told of her own experience with abortion ... (she) vividly described the post-abortion difficulties she had experienced-massive haemorrhage, several subsequent miscarriages and great emotional conflict.
She spoke of the numerous support groups forming throughout the United States (where abortion on demand has been legal for 15 years) for women who are experiencing similar difficulties. Rather than helping, abortion is hurting women, she said. Smith currently operates a home for unmarried pregnant teenagers and counsels pre- and post-abortion women.
Dr. Philip Ney a clinical psychiatry professor at the University of Calgary's department of psychiatry has reviewed the medical literature on the effects of induced abortion. He has also researched and published several articles that deal with the personal and social implications of the procedure.
In his most recent paper, Mental Health and Abortion-Review Analysis and Recommendations, (March 1, 1988,... Dr. Ney cites recent studies which are, "turning up an alarming rate of post-abortion complications such as pelvic inflammatory disease (with its subsequent infertility), depression, and a host of problems that may occur in the following pregnancy".
After a detailed review of studies on the mental health complications of elective abortions, Dr. Ney concludes: "When the psychologically harmful effects of abortion and its medical complications are considered, it is reasonable to state that elective abortion is more harmful than helpful to mental health".
In addition to his research activities, Dr. Ney has treated women suffering from psychiatric complications of abortion.
Women who have aborted may also be placing the mental health of their existing or future offspring at risk.
In an earlier article, A Consideration of Abortion Survivors, published in Child Psychiatry and Human Development, Vol. 13 (3), Spring 1983, Human Sciences Press, Dr. Ney calls attention to the plight of Children who, aware of their mother's abortion(s), "have considerable conflicts regarding their existence." He presents evidence which suggests that these children may exhibit psychological difficulties similar to children who live through disasters, accidents or illness or whose siblings died of the same.
"The knowledge they have been chosen to live creates peculiar psychological problems which may retard their development, subject them to an increased risk of abuse, neglect, existential guilt, as well as the possibility of becoming parents who have difficulty relating to their children," states Dr. Ney.
It is interesting at this point to consider the recent ethical dilemma of "pregnancy reduction"-the procedure whereby one or more unborn babies are eliminated while letting the other(s) survive. Currently, pregnancy reduction is largely confined to in vitro fertilization or fertility drug induced pregnancies where all lives may be lost due to pre-mature births. It is reasonable to conclude, based on Dr. Ney's findings, that survivors of this procedure would be among those at high risk of experiencing psychological difficulties.
So-called "survivors" are not necessarily restricted to persons whose mothers have experienced abortion, for as Dr. Ney said, "When up to 50 per cent of North American pregnancies end by induced abortion,it is reasonable to consider a live newborn as a survivor."
He adds, "We might wonder what happens in the future when abortion survivors hold in their hands the fate of those aged or enfeebled parents and professionals who regarded them so callously when as unborn children they were so vulnerable.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the effects of induced abortion on mental health is the possibility that permissive abortion may be contributing to the problem of child abuse.
We all know of the dangers and problems associated with child abuse today.
In another article, Relationship Between Abortion and Child Abuse, (published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 24, 1979), Dr. Ney cites studies which indicate a higher rate of child abuse among mothers who have previously had an abortion. He offers this explanation: "Once bonding is
Abortion
interrupted in the (first pregnancy), there are long-lasting psychological
changes which makes it more difficult for a good bond to develop in
subsequent pregnancies. For this reason, it is possible that abortion contributes
to bonding failure, an important cause of child battering."
That is why I say we all have a part in this. It is all important to our society and is something for which we must all be held responsible. Certainly we all have a responsibility to ensure that abortions decline instead of increase.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I preface my remarks by saying that I regret that we do not have before us a legislative initiative. Instead, we are speaking on a motion. Notwithstanding the results of this motion, there may or may not be legislation. The law we had and which we followed was effectively abolished on January 28, 1988, by a Supreme Court decision. Although this law, which came into effect in 1969, was not very valuable because it did not adequately protect human life, nevertheless it did make a statement merely by the fact it was there. Today we have a complete legislative vacuum, a vacuum which has existed now for some six months.
I do not want to spend my time tonight criticizing the Government. Instead, I would like to concentrate on the issue at hand. I would like to speak to the issue of life and to the issue of abortion which we are called upon to discuss tonight.
I make my remarks perhaps being in an unusual, some would say unorthodox, position of being the only Member of Parliament who has changed his mind, or who has admitted publicly to having changed his mind, on this issue. First, perhaps I should explain to the House and to Canadians why I changed my mind on abortion.
This is the second very intense moral debate that we have had in the House of Commons since I came here. The first one was the debate on capital punishment. Today, we are discussing abortion. On the issue of capital punishment I took a position. The more I spoke of the position I took the more I was convinced that I was right.
I also took a position with respect to abortion. However, the more I spoke of my position, the more I attempted to defend it in front of constituents and in front of others, the more I was convinced that what I stood for was wrong. On April 11, 1988, I stood in this House and admitted that the position I had taken was wrong. I apologized to my constituents for having taken such a position. I sought to correct the wrong that I had myself created.

Mr. Speaker, as you no doubt know, since you are a Member of Parliament like us, after an MP changes his mind in this debate, many Canadians approach him and express their opinion. When a Member stirs controversy, as I did by changing my mind, needless to say, I got the attention of many Canadians. Those who agreed with my position said so; those who disagreed certainly did not fail to say so.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
Mr. Speaker, that being said, this whole controversy has created a situation in which those around me asked me many questions. One day, my ten-year-old daughter Julie came to ask me, a few days after I had changed my mind on abortion, what an abortion is. She is barely ten years old. And she asked me that question in front of several people. I told her that I would explain it to her once we were back home. Naturally, once we were back home, I forgot, but my wife did not and neither did Julie. My daughter again came to me to say, "Dad, you have to tell me what an abortion is." I then tried to do so as best I could, with all the imperfections of a father, and I said to her, "Sit down, Julie, I will tell you briefly." I told her, "You know, Julie, when a woman gets pregnant, if she decides for one reason or another that she does not want to have a child, she can have an operation to remove the child, to have it taken out of her womb." Julie answered me, "Remove it-you mean kill it?"
Mr. Speaker, my 10-year-old daughter understood in 30 seconds what I had failed to understand for so long.

We are discussing abortion-we are certainly not inventing the wheel as legislators. It is a topic which has been discussed by many and, of course, for a very long time. The Hippocratic oath stated, and it was written somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400 BC:
I will give no deadly medicine to any one even upon request, nor suggest any
such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to
produce abortion.
Hippocrates was a pagan physician, just in case people believe that the Roman Catholic Church or anyone else has a monopoly on being against abortion.
In the 11th century BC the Hittite code of Assyria provided for the flogging of a man responsible for an abortion for the daughter of a freeman. Of course at that time the only measure of life was whether or not someone was free. Therefore life was deemed to have value.
The Old Testament states: "If men while quarrelling knocked down a pregnant woman, thus causing a miscarriage, they were fined".
St. Thomas Aquinas maintained that the soul was directly created by God and that it was infused in the embryo, not on the day of conception but when the embryo was formed enough to receive it. I still do not know what that means. Nevertheless, it was recognized to have been some point during a pregnancy.
Pope Gregory XIV in his encyclical letter excommunicated those found guilty of the abortion of a foetus after the first moments of life.
The Napoleonic Code of 1810 provided for imprisonment and hard labour for the woman and the abortionist.
The issue of abortion is difficult for us to deal with. It is certainly the most gut-wrenching and difficult issue that I have
ever had to deal with and probably ever will. If it gives us any comfort, it did not seem to be much easier 2,000, 3,000 or 5,000 years ago. But we were not sent here to do easy things. We were sent here to do the job at hand.
When I changed my mind on abortion I did so believing in the sanctity of life. One of the things that made me change my mind more than anything else, if you can believe this, Mr. Speaker, is that when I reread my own speech that I made on capital punishment I realize that I stated then that life is sacred and that all life is worth preserving.
I note that is the House of Commons Debates of November 9, 1967, when the then Solicitor General was banning capital punishment he said in his speech: "I believe that so long as the state claims the right under the law to deliberately take human life there will be a tendency to regard life more cheaply". That was 19 years ago. I believe he was correct. I believe also that the same comments are applicable when we deal with abortion.
There is an interesting contradiction at the present time between criminal law and civil law in Canada. Criminal law is simply non-existent as it pertains to the foetus. Jurisprudence in civil cases in the past year to be stated in this House in order to demonstrate to Members of Parliament the glaring contradiction between criminal and civil law.
In many wills there is an expression stated by the person leaving his or her estate that they leave it to "all my living children". This has been interpreted by the courts, as it should be, upon occasion. It is interesting to note that Judge Mathers in Manitoba Court of King's Bench ruled in 1918 in the case of a woman who was pregnant and who had not yet given birth in the following way. A gift as in this will to "all living children" comprehends those living at the testator's death and those who are "en ventre sa mere". In other words, civil law, in that case, and in the 1907 case of Villar vs. Gilbey was that a child yet unborn was a child for the purposes of receiving an estate. Interestingly enough, the child unborn is not deemed to be a child if its life is taken away. I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that contradiction in itself should make us think about what it is that we are doing.
Some people claim that the unborn child is not yet a living person, that it is some form of amorphous blob, and that the taking of that life is not necessarily wrong. I do not know at what point human life begins. Unless someone proves differently to me, I shall assume that it begins at the time of conception.
Why do I come to those conclusions? First, I do not think that the onus is upon me to prove it. I think the onus is upon those who believe otherwise to tell me why life begins at some other point. To prove my case, I have here in front of me volume 317, dated November 19, 1987 of The New England Journal of Medicine. This journal can hardly be considered to be pro-life propaganda. It published an article entitled "Pain

July 26, 1988

and its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus". In the article it states:
Cutaneous sensory receptors appear in the perioral area of the human fetus in the 7th week of gestation; they spread to the rest of the face, the palms of the hands, and the soles of the feet by the 11 th week...
In other words, from the seventh week on there is a feeling or sensory perception on the part of the foetus. We know that there are live births at 18 and 19 weeks. We know that there are abortions at 20 weeks. Yet for some reason we pretend that that is not murder.

Mr. Speaker, some people will say that abortion should be allowed when there is a possibility the child may be deformed or handicapped.
I should like to voice my disagreement with this suggestion. As a matter of fact, I express not only my disagreement but also, I believe, that of our country as a political entity.
Indeed, on November 20, 1959 Canada signed the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Here is what Canada signed when it endorsed the declaration.

I read from this declaration one of the preambles which states:
Whereas the child by reason of physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.
As a nation we signed that Declaration of the Rights of the Child in 1959 which stated that the unborn child, when handicapped, deserved special protection, not elimination.
Canada has also signed other international covenants regarding the issue of the foetus. In 1947 the World Medical Association published its new version of the Hippocratic oath. Canada is a member of that illustrious group. I have here the Declaration of Geneva, the modern day Hippocratic oath, which states:
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.
Again a document that we as a nation signed some 41 years ago.
If we as a nation fail to legislate on abortion, I believe that we are allowing society to crumble and we would be contributing toward it. There is a dangerous situation happening now. I have before me the text of an editorial from The Globe and Mail of June 18, 1983. The article is entitled "Life and Death". It states: The City of Toronto's Health Department reported that in 1981, the latest year for which statistics are available, 8,313 abortions were performed in that city and that there were 7,597 live births." There is something dreadfully wrong when there are more abortions in the city than there are live births.
To further this case, I have a chart in front of me that was published by the pro-life movement, Alliance for Life, in which
Abortion
it describes the number of abortions from 1970 to 1986. They have identified it on that chart as representing 907,351. That compares to the number of Canadian deaths in the Boer War, World War I, World War II, and the Korean War of 99,449. In other words, there were ten times more abortions in the last 16 years than deaths in the last 80 years of warfare.

Mr. Speaker, I spent a good many years as a child in the care of my grandparents. I used to live with them when I was a small child and my grandmother would tell me that it was wrong to break a bird's egg because it contained life, the small bird yet to be born. I think my grandmother was right, Mr. Speaker. The unborn exists not only in a bird's egg but elsewhere as well.

In conclusion, and unfortunately this is all the time left to me, I urge upon my colleagues the following. In our society, we need strong family policies, assistance for families, assistance for unwed mothers, stronger child encouragement such as child care, but more than that we need a strong abortion law which states our position as a society. We need a strong law to protect a human from the time of conception. I say only one thing to my colleagues that, before they vote, they reflect upon the following, and I ask them to let them live.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, the abortion issue which, as elected representatives, we have to address tonight is indeed a very difficult and complicated one. Are we for or against abortion? Deep down, is this something that we can wish for? Can anyone, whether a man, a woman, a priest, or just about anybody here hope to live through an abortion? Human life is something we all have in common, Mr. Speaker, and that is what is the most important. An unborn child for a couple or for the continuation of our society is the major principle of human life. As an elected Member of this House, however, I have a responsibility to legislate. The responsibility of the Church is to promote ethics, life and the respect for human life, but it is also the responsibility of legislators to promote the same respect, while considering its consequences. It is these consequences that we, as Members of this House, will have to take into account when we are called upon to vote at 12 o'clock next Thursday.
What did the former legislation say? It said that when a girl had an abortion, she could face a two-year prison sentence, and the physician who procured the abortion could face a life prison sentence. That was the legislation which we had before but which was not enforced and which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. That is why we have to deal with this issue.
Mr. Speaker, we should not shut our eyes and refuse to look reality in the face.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
As a legislator, what do I do about a young girl of 14, 16, 18 or 20 who for various reasons decides to have an abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy? If I vote according to my principles and ignore the consequences of my legislation, am I not also making a mistake with some very serious social consequences? Should a young girl who is afraid of being thrown out of the house by her parents because it was incest or rape or for any other reason, a young girl who panics and decides to have an abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy, be brought before the courts and charged with murder, with the obvious social consequences for the girl herself and her family?
Another question, Mr. Speaker. Should 1 as a legislator overlook the fact that U.S. border states allow abortion, no questions asked? Am I not trying to ignore the fact that a young girl who can afford it will fly to the United States, have her abortion, not say a word to anyone and come back here? While the other girl who can't afford it will go down to the basement to be cut up by God knows who, with further consequences for her own fertility and health.
As the legislator, I have to consider that as well, Mr. Speaker. I cannot afford to vote according to my principles without considering the consequences of the legislation itself. Because after all, it could be your daughter, it could be mine, it could be the daughter of any of us. But in spite of all this, we cannot afford to leave the door wide open. That would not make sense. But how to find a middle ground from which we can protect life and at the same time not go overboard with coercive discipline?
On the weekend, I was talking to constituents in my riding. I tried to visualize some amendments, and I said: Actually, if we allow abortion only for minors, in cases of incest and rape, what do we do? So the girl goes to the doctor after two months and she says: It was rape. How can that be proven? It is impossible. Whenever we try to pass equitable legislation aimed at protecting life, problems do arise. That, Mr. Speaker, is the decision which we, as legislators, must make on Thursday.
Also, it is easy for us, men, to vote on the principle, but we are not the ones who bear children. However, we do have a stake in the matter. We must promote life, but we must also pass legislation which will not create social problems of similar significance.
make this possible and to improve the conditions in which the women who experience these problems find themselves.
So, Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today reads in part as follows:
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;
This objective, however, is flawed due to its lack of precision. We must not swing the doors wide open. It is obvious that we must be against abortion, but we must make allowance for specific conditions in which people find themselves in our society. It is in that context that I will try to analyze carefully, on Thursday, all the amendments which are proposed. As a Member of Parliament, I refuse to vote on a principle without giving any thought to the impact of this legislation. In so doing, I think that we must allow for certain options in order to make the legislation as human as possible.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, last January, when the Supreme Court struck down the old abortion law, the Government said it was ready to give leadership on the question. On the day after the Supreme Court decision, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) said:
"As far as our responsibilities are concerned, we intend to provide the leadership that is required on this issue.
I am reading from Don McGillivray's column of May 17:
He was going to take "a position of leadership" and "provide all Canadian citizens right across the country with a uniform approach. That is the commitment that we make at this point in time. In addition, we will be dealing with this matter on an urgent basis."
Mr. McGillivray then added:
Since then, the urgency as well as the leadership seems to have gone missing. Instead of talking about leadership now ...
And this was more than two months ago.
... the government is ducking responsibility. The prime minister says abortion is not something on which a party position is proper. The justice minister says he wants to "let the House of Commons determine the course of this matter".
Mr. McGillivray observed that:
As the Mulroney government goes into hiding on the abortion issue, it is forcing individual members of Parliament into the open.
A free vote shifts responsibility to the individual MP. He or she must take a stand on a subject the government itself considers too hot to handle.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, when I speak about abortion, I Those comments seem to be very fair ones, with regard to feel very much concerned because my wife and I have adopted	kinds of responsibility or, rather, lack of it, that the
two children. If their mothers had had an abortion, I would Government has shown on this issue, if it regards the matters have been deprived of the opportunity of adopting these as ^e*n8 important in doing what it seems to do. children. Therefore, I also know what	I am talking about What we are given this day and over the next couple of days,
because I know the importance of the	issue. Unfortunately,	through extended hours of debate through	the night, perhaps,nowadays, women too often forget that there are couples who is the opportunity for individual Members to express their want children and would be only too	willing to adopt the	opinions. I am reminded of the practice in	the U.S. Congresschildren they carry. As legislators, we	also have a duty to	where members very often want to put	something on the
July 26, 1988

record and simply do so by inserting it in that record. They do not have to speak it in the Congress. It is simply printed as if it had been spoken. This happens to be one of those times when American usage might have been useful.
Instead, we are going to be going through this particular charade, and I say that advisedly, of expressing ourselves on the matter. There is going to be a kind of reading taken in the House of what Members think about various aspects of the question. We may get a majority on the motion and we may not. It is all too likely that this Parliament will end before it can consider legislation. It will have been quite literally a charade with the votes occurring, ironically enough, six months to the day last January when the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its verdict.
There is a very serious question to be asked at the outset when considering this motion, that is, how serious have the consequences of the Supreme Court decision actually been? There are those who suggest that chaos reigns in the land. I have seen that in material sent to me by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. I noted in the comments by the member of the Official Opposition who responded to the Deputy Government House Leader, observations about some sort of crisis into which Canada had been cast last January. I am not sure that this is the best way to read the situation.
What continues to be the case is that abortions can only occur legally by the actions of medical practitioners in hospitals or in clinics, if they are going to be legal and provided for within the national medicare system. It is not obvious that there has been any great increase in numbers. In fact, if there is one vital fact to be noted about the consequences of that Supreme Court decision, it is that in a number of jurisdictions there has been a flouting of the decision. There is no more equality of access within the law in a number of provinces than there was before.
That is a very different kind of problem from the one that alarmists are trying to raise in pressing this issue. Is it possible that the Government has backed off from legislation because of its recognition that the situation is not nearly as chaotic, or as much a matter of crisis as some of the alarmists would have us think?
It is worth saying, of course, that with the Supreme Court decision on Section 251 of the Criminal Code dealing with therapeutic abortion committees and hospitals, we are not left by any means without law on abortion. There are still illegal abortions as there always were. That is to say, it is possible for an illegal abortion to occur. It is still necessary to ensure that the proper medical practices prevail. In that particular context, I think one of the other facts that those who wish to stampede us into action need to consider is that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada after years of decisions at lower court levels, in which Doctor Henry Morgentaler played a central role, made one thing very clear about the law that
Abortion
Parliament passed and established. One of the most fundamental principles of public life, of jurisprudence, of the practices of the judicial system in Canada, one of the most fundamental principles on which we depend for our security of person, is the principle that one will be found guilty only by a jury of one's peers.
The fact that juries refused to convict women or Doctor Morgentaler as a qualified medical practitioner said something about the law of Canada. We in this Parliament, recognizing the importance of jury decisions as fundamental to our security of person, certainly needed to respect those decisions.
Having said these things about the situation which, it seems to me, does not deserve nearly all the alarmism projected by various persons, it is after all in this context that we may see colleges of physicians and surgeons, provincial departments of health, conceivably the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, and hospital boards, respecting the Supreme Court decision and the law as it has declared it, developing the standards and ethical practices which are to be applied when physicians consider the question with a woman of the desirability or otherwise of an abortion.
The fact that this is through and through a moral question seems to me to make it quite appropriate that colleges of physicians and surgeons, hospital committees and boards, departments of health, provincial and federal, should be involved in considering what is proper, what is right, in these matters, with all the assistance that can be provided by medical ethicists in universities and other places and by informed public debate, the kind of debate this resolution does in its way make possible.
The position of the NDP is well known, I think, to all Canadians. It is sometimes misinterpreted but there is little doubt, I am sure, in the minds of any Canadian that the NDP is committed to freedom of choice for women. I would say, in fact, particularly following on some intensive discussions which took place in our caucus over some hours today in clarifying the position we would adopt vis-a-vis the resolution put before us, that the position of the NDP is profoundly focused on freedom of choice because in our Party, perhaps above all of the three Parties, there has been a recognition of the extent to which the abortion question is part of the struggle of women in our country and in other countries to establish their security of person, to establish their rights and their control over their present and future.
The fact that this is an ongoing struggle in the way I have already suggested, the failure of jurisdictions such as Prince Edward Island where no abortions are available at all, or other jurisdictions which have failed to follow through on the Supreme Court decision or the spirit of that decision, the fact that those things exist underscores the way in which this struggle by women to ensure their own security of person continues in our country.
It is quite clear in the debate that took place among us in caucus, and in my brooding over the resolution, that the policy

July 26, 1988
Abortion
position the NDP has taken, which is opposed to any kind of criminalization of women or physicians involved in these matters, reflects a profound commitment to the desire of women to control their own lives and their own circumstances and to be secure in their own persons. For those reasons, in a certain sense, the NDP could rejoice last January in the fact that the Supreme Court came to a somewhat similar position on the whole matter.
The fact that there is this insistence, then, that women must have this security of person, must have the opportunity to make this decision in consultation with a qualified medical practitioner , the reality of that fact in our caucus and in the positions we have taken over the years, is quite clearly paralleled.
This is in the most genuine of senses a concern about life. We New Democrats are not for abortion. We are for choice and for the right of women to be able to make those choices, to be free to make them. It is a concern about life on which that is based. It is a concern about the lives of women, the lives of families and the lives of children. It is a concern about all these human realities. It is imperative that that be appreciated.
It is all too easy for persons to recognize that abortion is a control question. Every time another man rises to make a speech against abortion, it is astonishing how often he gives himself away in the extent to which he understands that this is a control question, or halfway understands it at least. He knows perfectly well that keeping women in check and under control is a way for men to continue in the control that they have exercised for so long in society.
Against such a context is a choice as an assertion of the freedom of women and their desire to achieve full lives for themselves, to have good lives for their families and to be able to provide for their children the comfort and plenitude we would all like to have. Those are the things that are vital to life in society. To focus in a very narrow way on the question of whether it is a human life from the moment of conception and on not interfering with it in any way is surely to get involved in one very particular aspect of the question and all too easily to ignore all the others.
One Conservative after another is claiming to be really committed to life in this debate this evening which presumably will continue through the nighttime hours and similarly tomorrow and into Thursday. At the same time, they support a Government which in one area after another has acted against the interests of the family. It is not doing enough in the interests of children. It is interfering with the need for family planning and for education in sexuality. To be supporting all those things while at the same time claiming to be a great supporter of human life from the moment of conception is hypocrisy of the worst sort.
This Government has cut back on funding for Planned Parenthood of Canada. It is holding back on family allowances
and increasing taxation for families. It cannot find the money to meet the child care needs of the day let alone into the future. It is a Government which has done nothing in the area of housing policy. I refer as well to previous Liberal Governments which, over the past two decades, have driven the cost of housing to exorbitant levels which load every family down with pressures that force women into the workforce, whether they choose to or not. These pressures make it absolutely essential that both husband and wife be wage earners. Those realities cannot be avoided in any consideration of who is for life and who is against it.
This question is very clearly a moral one. Each of us looks to his own community for assurance or otherwise. As a member of the United Church of Canada, I note that among other points that were made to all Members of Parliament in March of this year by the United Church, the following observations were made:
The United Church of Canada is not pro-abortion.
It is in favour of responsible and informed choice in certain medical, social and economic crisis situations.
That is quite clearly a position very much like the one New Democrats take. The United Church also observed:
Abortion is always a moral issue.
It must always be seen as the lesser of two evils, a decision to be made in full recognition of the consequences for the woman and her family of either choice. It must not be treated as a form of contraception.
Again, that is a position that New Democrats take time after time. Another item is as follows:
Women must be respected as moral agents.
Few, if any, women undertake this decision lightly. Their right to be treated as moral persons must not be ignored.
I put those on the one side in support of what I am saying about the matter of life. I put against that those who claim the pro-life label for themselves and put forward their own radical position that life must be sacred in practically every circumstance from the moment of conception, quite ignoring the realities of spontaneous abortions which occur in remarkable numbers of pregnancies, and other brute facts of pre-natal life. This is an assertion which is largely just an assertion.
Having grown up in an evangelical context, and a number of colleagues in the House are familiar with these influences as well, I have looked at the Scriptures to see if there is any contradiction to the position I am spelling out. I found practically nothing. If one has to look to the poetry of Scripture in the Psalms for some sort of support for a radical position, then it is on the very thinnest of ice that one is skating. If one has then to fall back on the attitude to life that characterizes Judaism, the attitude to life that Christ taught, then we are surely not very far away from what I have been saying about a regard for the freedom and security of person, of women, a concern for the health of the family, a regard for little children and their safety, all of which are concerns of
July 26, 1988

New Democrats. These should be the concerns of the Government, and particularly of those Members who claim to be prolife. Those are the contexts within which we put abortion.
I too regret the number of abortions that occur in Canada, but it is not by means of criminal law that we will deal with the fact. In moving to a conclusion, I would consider what the needs of the hour actually are. In making a suggestion, I have to go beyond the policy of the New Democratic Party which, as I have already said, has been focused in a peculiar way, though quite understandably historically, on the rights of women and protection of their security. I have to go beyond that by suggesting that with a moral question of this sort, it is not the criminal law that we need at all. It is development in the ethics with which we approach these matters and it is development in the social provisions that are most imperative.
If we do not get the kind of development in the protection of families that I have already suggested, women will continue to be faced with harsh economic and social situations. Women will find themselves victims of the abuse of men, as happens time after time.
Just over the weekend, I was reading an article from the Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, under the rather cute but ultimately incredibly painful title of "Men Will Be Men". It focused on the fact that 98.5 per cent of cases of sexual abuse are cases of which boys and men are guilty. What is it in our society that leads to that kind of abuse? How profoundly wrong it is to focus on women and the abortion decision they may be driven to in these circumstances instead of recognizing that it is society that needs to be changed and transformed.
What we need most imperatively, obviously, is equality of access. I would suggest that the Government consider using the Canada Health Act and taking strong actions with those jurisdictions that refuse to provide ease of access for women, particularly during the first trimester of pregnancy. If women were able to achieve an abortion when forced into it by the harsh necessities of life in the first 12 or 14 weeks of pregnancy, all our concerns about later abortions would fall by the wayside, except of course in those terrible situations that arise when a doctor must make a choice between saving the life of a pregnant woman or the foetus. Of course we generally save the life of the pregnant woman. In other circumstances I doubt that there would be many abortions occurring at the later stages of pregnancy, so all of those concerns would be provided for.
If we needed to provide any limitations I suggest that regulations under the Canada Health Act could do the job perfectly well in stating the desire of society, that is to say, our moral expectations. We could specify what we will fund and what we will not fund in the way of procedures which occur in
Abortion
the area of abortion. We could lay out for physicians, hospitals, and the departments of health in the provinces the expectations that we have.
All of this could be done without using the criminal law power of the federal Government at all but focusing, instead, on the spending power of the federal Government. That, it seems to me, is the way to move ahead on this profoundly difficult question before us. It is something which could be done without acting with the sense of panic which alarmists all around us have been trying to create.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, after the striking down of the existing law respecting abortion by the Supreme Court in the Morgentaler case it has become our duty and responsibility, as Members of Parliament, to fill the void left in the law. Only an extreme fringe would argue that it is acceptable to perform an abortion at eight and a half months. The previous speaker outlined the official NDP position on abortion on demand paid for by the state, although I know there are members of that Party who take a differing view. I am sure that even that Member would not countenance abortion done a couple of days before an expected birth. That, Sir, is too close to infanticide.
What the law should be is one of the most difficult things that we as Parliamentarians have been called upon to decide, certainly in this Parliament. People have strong opinions firmly held on one side of the question or the other. It is not my intention tonight to get involved in the technical arguments on one side or the other. Those have been given many times by speakers much more eloquent than myself.
People, including Members of Parliament, are unlikely to be swayed by argument. There is one Member of this House, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), who has admitted to changing his mind on the issue. Everyone else is of the same opinion as they were years ago. People hold these views on account of strong moral, ethical and religious convictions.
We all have our own biases. My particular bias is well known. I am certainly towards the right-to-life end of the spectrum. To me abortion is only acceptable under very special circumstances where there is a real risk to the life or serious threat to the health of the mother or in certain cases such as rape or incest.
However, it is incumbent upon us to bring this debate to some sort of a conclusion and to put in place law dealing with this subject. It is a given fact that whatever the law, it cannot reflect all views. Therefore, there has to be some kind of a compromise, and that in an area in which people are singularly reluctant to make such a compromise. The best that we can expect from an eventual law is that the result will be criticized equally strongly on both sides, but perhaps we will end up with something with which people can live.
The easy thing for a Member of Parliament to do in this debate-and we have seen much of this today-is to state his

July 26, 1988
Abortion
or her point of view and then vote against anything that does not coincide with that. It is pretty easy to be critical and it is very difficult to work toward this necessary compromise which is bound to cause much discomfort. However, to take that attitude is tantamount to washing our hands of the issue. It is a denial of the responsibility and duty to which I referred earlier placed on us as Members of Parliament by the people of Canada.
It may be that Members in the Opposition, and perhaps even private Members on this side of the House, can take that attitude. However, the Government, per se, cannot. I know of the great amount of thought and discussion which took place within the Cabinet and within the various Party caucuses before the motion which we have before us tonight was placed on the Order Paper. This motion, if passed, or if passed as amended, will form the guide for legislation to be drafted and brought into this House at a later date.
In short, the concept contained in the main motion is that we will have relatively easy access to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. If we have such a Bill before us I will probably argue in favour of a pretty restricted period. We are going to have a much more strict limitation in the later stages of pregnancy. Of course there will be a requirement that the procedure be done by properly qualified medical practitioners. I do not think that that particular provision will cause much dissension.
Despite personal opinions to the contrary, it seems to me that this approach as expressed in the government motion is the only approach with which the great majority of Canadians could eventually live. It is one which would comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada and one which would be complied with and not ignored by those seeking an abortion. It would worry me if we were to pass a very strict law on this subject which would then be disregarded by thousands of Canadians, most of them young women.
When we draft the law we will have to address ourselves to what penalties are to be imposed for breaking the law. What are we going to do with a 15, 16, or 17-year-old girl who goes out and has an abortion contrary to this very strict law? Are we going to throw her into jail? Are we going to subject her to a heavy fine? It seems to me that the best answer is the one contemplated in the motion in order that we will not be throwing young women into jail and they will not be forced to skip the country.
We should, at the same time, do all the other things which so many people have mentioned to reduce the number of abortions performed in Canada. Estimates of that number vary between 60,000 and 100,000 a year, and that is unacceptable. We must use all other methods besides strict legal ones to make sure that there is a reduction in the number of abortions performed in our country.
Therefore it is my intention to fulfil that responsibility and duty imposed on me as a Member of this House, not avoid it. It is my intention to vote in favour of the motion standing in the name of the Deputy Government House Leader.


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed both an honour and a privilege for me to rise in my place this evening to speak in this debate on this most controversial yet vital and important issue, namely the abortion question.
As most Canadians know by now, this House is debating the abortion issue as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada overturning Section 251 of the Criminal Code and supporting this decision on the basis of Section 15 of the Charter. By this decision the court has left the innocent unborn in their mothers' wombs completely unprotected and vulnerable to the abortionist's tools.
At the outset, I want to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government for allowing me as a Member of Parliament the freedom to take my place and, without pressure of any sort, to vote on what I and I believe a majority of people feel is right in this situation. I thank the Government for that opportunity.
When we talk about abortion, we are not talking about the very few pregnancies that result from reported rape or incest, or the case of the threat to the life of the mother. We are talking about approximately 100,000 abortions in Canada, as reported in Statistics Canada figures, as well as those abortions carried out by various abortionists across the country.
What most Canadians also do not know is that in 1982, 11,000 women in Canada had an abortion for the second time, and 2,000 women for the third or fourth time. In 1981, the City of Toronto released figures stating that 8,300 abortions were performed, while there were only 7,600 live births.
It becomes obvious from these figures that abortion is not really a result of serious health problems but more a result of choices based on personal inconvenience or added financial burden.
The irony of the high number of abortions is that essentially, Canadians believe life is worth protecting. In 1982, they spent $30 billion or 8.4 per cent of our Gross National Product because they believed that life is the greatest gift we are given. It is hard for me to fathom that on one floor of a hospital all the medical expertise available is being used to save a life, yet one floor down in that same hospital an unborn baby is being cut up by an abortionist's tools and sucked out by a vacuum into a waste basket in an operating room.
We hear the term unwanted pregnancies, yet in Ontario there is a five-year waiting period for adoption. The population of Canada is approximately 25 million. In order to maintain the status quo, Canadians should average 2.3 children per family, yet the average family size is 1.6 children. In fact, in Quebec, the average is 1.3 children per family.
July 26, 1988

It must be stated clearly, though, that many women are forced to look at abortion because of men or boyfriends who are not willing to accept their responsibility and offer love, understanding and financial support to see this pregnancy through. In stating the obvious: "It takes two to get pregnant", it is not just a woman's problem.
Essentially, we are only maintaining our population through increased immigration. In Ontario in 1969, official agencies processed the adoption of 5,400 children. In 1979, this figure had dropped to 1,248. By 1984, 862 children were adopted through provincial agencies in Ontario. In this same time frame, abortions have increased over 600 per cent. As a Government, it is important to see that those women faced with unexpected pregnancies have available counselling services and possible financial assistance.
One of the basic debates in this very difficult and emotional issue is, when does life begin? I believe, if one is totally objective, that medical evidence clearly shows that life begins at conception. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that four days after conception the sex of the unborn can be determined under a special microscope, or that after 24 to 25 days the heart begins to beat and pump its own blood, or that 43 days after conception brainwaves can be determined? Did you know that 30 days after conception, foundations of the brain, spinal chord, nerves and sex organs are completely formed?
All of the following occur even before the mother knows she is pregnant. Nerves and muscles begin working together, lips become sensitive to touch and the shape of the body is unmistakenly human and possesses all the internal organs of an adult.
In fact, the stomach produces digestive juices, the liver manufactures red blood cells, and the kidney eliminates uric acid from the body. Even the legs, arms, fingers and toes have already been formed. From this point on the only changes will be in size and sophistication of use of the unborn's parts. When we consider the abortion procedure, it becomes very clear that if the unborn foetus were not a living being there would be no reason for terminating its life.
I think it is important for Canadians to realize just what happens when a baby is aborted in its mother's womb by an elective abortion procedure. I realize there are those who are offended by such descriptions, yet I think in many cases people's consciences are pricked when they see and hear what really happens when an abortion is performed.
The first procedure is the D&C or the dilation and curettage abortion. This method is most often used in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. A tiny hoe-like instrument, the curette, is inserted into the womb through the dilated cervix, its natural gateway. The abortionist then scrapes the wall of the uterus, cutting the baby's body to pieces. This is now used less frequently than suction.
The second procedure is suction abortion, the most commonly used method for early pregnancies. The principle is the same
Abortion
as in the D&C. In this technique, which was pioneered in Communist China, a powerful suction tube is inserted through the cervix into the womb. The body of the developing baby and placenta are torn to pieces and sucked into a jar.
The third procedure is salt poisoning, or hyper-natremic abortion. This method is generally used after 13 weeks of pregnancy. According to Statistics Canada, in 1985, 1,715 babies were aborted between 17 and 20 weeks, and 181 babies were aborted after 20 weeks.
In this procedure, a long needle is inserted through the mother's abdomen and a strong salt solution is injected directly into the amniotic fluid which surrounds the child. The salt is swallowed and breathed and slowly poisons the baby, burning his or her skin as well. The mother goes into labour about a day later and expels a dead, grotesque, shrivelled baby. Unbelievably, some babies have actually survived this "salting out", and were bom alive.
As graphic and distasteful as these descriptions are, I believe Canadians must have awareness of the medical procedures involved in an abortion if they are going to continue to voice partial support for abortion in this country. When the abortion issue becomes a question of respect for human life, and it always does, it not only refers to the lives of unborn children, but to the lives of the elderly, the sick and, indeed, our own lives. Abortion is only the tip of the iceberg as we see today in our society euthanasia being discussed and even practised in moderate form. Does this mean in the final analysis, as Dr. Harley Smith at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto stated:
There is relentless pressures on Governments to govern and physicians to practice on the principles of pure utility. In this view, what is good is not what is just or what is right, but what is useful. What is strong will survive. Who is wanted will be welcome.
I find it ironic that we live in a country that protects eagles' eggs and baby seals under law and yet allows abortion on demand. Throughout the abortion debate, we cannot get away from the fact that we are talking about the protection of or the taking of the life of the innocent unborn. We are living in a different world since Mr. Trudeau brought in his Charter, Section 15 of the Charter in particular. We hear an emphasis on rights, but what about responsibility and accountability?
In the abortion debate we constantly hear that women should make the choice over their own bodies. I agree that women should have the choice, but that choice should come before she enters into a sexual relationship with her partner. Grown men and women know that by entering into a sexual relationship there is always the possibility that a pregnancy could occur. Surely, abortion should not be considered a solution in that situation, like removing a troublesome wart. Margaret Eihler, one of the leaders of the radical feminist movement in Canada, stated: "Thanks to the feminist movement, the traditional or nuclear family is a goner". The radical feminist lobbyists, supported strongly by taxpayers' money,

July 26, 1988
Abortion
feel that Governments should put sexual orientation into the human rights code and have abortion on demand. Let us not be fooled by these demands. If we accept their premise, we only destroy the family unit which history has already revealed is the strength of a nation.
When we consider the simple facts, that our population is declining and abortions are increasing, does it not become obvious that we are virtually destroying our own population? Do I dare say, we might even become an endangered species? Let us never forget that civilizations are judged by the way they treat their weakest members. That is why in closing, I take pleasure in moving an amendment to Government Order No. 36, that the motion now under consideration be amended by striking out all the words following "to protect the unborn" and replacing them with the following: "Such legislation should prohibit the performance of an abortion except when two independent qualified medical practitioners have, in good faith and on reasonable grounds, stated that in their opinion the continuation of the pregnancy would, or would be likely to, endanger the life of the pregnant woman.
We have heard excellent speeches from the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), the Hon. Member for Surrey- White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) and the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges). I look forward to voting with them and others to protect life in Canada and against the resolution put forward by the Deputy House Leader.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments during your absence, the rules have been changed somewhat on the matter of amendments. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on this subject which, as you know, is a difficult, complex and in some respects emotional one. It is difficult because of the various tendencies in a multicultural society such as ours where rules are no longer easily found that are widely accepted, especially those involving ethics, lifestyle, education and culture. So, this is a difficult debate, but it is also a complex one, because on whichever side one is, pro-life or pro-choice, it is difficult to draft legislation that is certain to achieve the desired goal, and I think this task is nonetheless an extremely important one for legislators.
While difficult and complex, this debate also is emotional because lives are involved-the lives of unborn infants, and what could be more marvelous in fact than witnessing the birth of a human being, a new baby?
Therefore, the motion on abortion raises a question that is linked to our culture, our religious beliefs, our lifestyle, and in order to find a solution, we must strike a balance between various rights, that of the mother over her own body, that of the foetus which is an unborn baby, its right to live, and the moment during pregnancy where that right takes precedence over that of the mother.
In terms of rights, there is something else we were reminded of recently by certain newspapers. What are the rights of the biological father of the unborn baby?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to state at the outset that I oppose abortion on demand. Such an approach would not answer the questions I raised, the questions raised by this debate on abortion- namely those of balancing the rights of the various parties involved.
Before going any further, I would like to stress that what is before this House is a motion rather than a piece of legislation. I heard colleagues earlier refer to the legislation. There is no legislation before us.
Instead of assuming its responsibilities and presenting the House and the Canadian people with a legislative measure which would have spelled out the fine details of its intentions, the Government-probably intent on avoiding internal dissention within its own membership-chose to throw the whole issue at the House of Commons in a haphazard approach. No bill, no leadership in terms of ideas and guidance for the Canadian nation. So here we are debating this motion, and once we all have had our say the problem will still be with us because no legislation will have been enacted. We will still be empty-handed, trying to cope with the Criminal Code or the provisions which the Supreme Court of Canada struck down because they are ultra vires. Nothing will have been solved, we will simply have talked about the issue for a while. Undoubtedly this will enable the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to go on the hustings and claim that the question has been debated in the House of Commons. But his Government-this Conservative Government-will have done absolutely nothing to find a solution to a problem which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) described as a priority which had to be dealt with at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I had to say that, because I still think that Quebecers and other Canadians, men and women both, will be under the impression that this debate has solved the problem. Far from it.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, drafted as it is the motion under consideration would not stand the test of court action and a reference to the Supreme Court. What did the Supreme Court have to say in its January 28 judgment? For all practical purposes it stated that Criminal Code Section 251 which provides that the uninterrupted pregnancy of a woman would probably endanger her life or health is contrary to Canada's Charter of Rights. And according to Criminal Code Section 251 the decision must be made by a group of physicians, a kind of medical council of at least three doctors appointed by a recognized hospital, and these doctors are allowed to decide whether the mental health of the mother might be endangered if the pregnancy is not brought to an end.
The Supreme Court ruled that this clause was ultra vires because it interfered with the right of a woman to use her own body as she saw fit.
July 26, 1988

Mr. Speaker, becatise I heard a great many speeches in this House dealing with the motion before us and suggesting amendments which are exactly consistent with Section 251 of the Criminal Code, 1 feel that those who moved these amendments should know that the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should also be used to achieve their goal. Concerning the use of the notwithstanding clause, we should be aware that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) had indicated that using it was out of the question.
They will have to live with this and the consequences of their actions. All Conservative, Liberal or NDP Members who want to propose such amendments must be willing also to say that they will propose amendments to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because even by using the notwithstanding clause, such legislation would have a five-year sunset clause, so that every five years, they would have to return to the House, debate and pass the same legislation, failing which it would become ultra vires.
Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is extremely vague and does not define any of the criteria necessary for us to pass judgment. For instance, this motion states in part:
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;
I try to read and understand exactly what this really means. If there is a direct intervention by a physician before the woman may make a decision and that her decision is not contrary to the physician's opinion, we are faced again with Section 251 of the Criminal Code which the Supreme Court ruled ultra vires while replacing the medical board by a physician. Then again, if we assume that, in the third paragraph of the motion before us, the first part does not lead into or precede the second part, we could read that the woman in consultation with a qualified medical practitioner decides to terminate her pregnancy.
In those conditions, can she exercise the freedom of choice called for by the Supreme Court ruling? Such would be the case only if a doctor is of the opinion that her physical and mental well-being is in danger or if the decision can be made by the woman alone. And when I read the English version, Mr. Speaker, things become even more complicated, because the French version reads as follows:
... la femme enceinte, apres avoir consulte un medecin qualifie, decide de mettre fin a sa grossesse;
While the English version reads as follows:
Abortion
"When the woman, in consultation with a qualified medical practitioner, decides to terminate her pregnancy".

The French version reads as follows:
... la femme enceinte, apres avoir consulte ...
While the English version reads as follows:

"When the woman, in consultation-"
[ Translation]
Which of the two versions, the French or the English, is to take precedence? Will the decision be made by the woman alone or in consultation with her doctor? And what happens if the English version takes precedence and the woman and her doctor are not of the same opinion?
Therefore, the motion before us is extremely vague and, in my opinion, contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling. If we use this motion in a Bill or translate it into a bill, I think we open the door to another court challenge and a resumption of the debate while the matter goes back to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Speaker, I will therefore have to vote against the motion because it is far too vague. For instance, what does "in the earlier stages of pregnancy" mean? If the motion were more specific and referred to a certain number of weeks, perhaps I might give this aspect some serious thought. However, when someone refers to "the earlier stages of pregnancy", some people define this as the first 20 weeks or the first 24 weeks, while others say it is the first 12 weeks. Having tabled a motion as vague and as unspecific as this one, was the Government really serious about asking us to speak to this motion as Members of Parliament?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to leave the technical aspects of the motion and get back to the substance. What is the role of the legislator in our modern society? What is our role here in the House? As I see it, we are here to organize a social order, not to impose our personal views, views that I may have as a Catholic, as a citizen of Montreal, or other beliefs, other personal attitudes which I may be prepared to defend outside the House as a private citizen. Mr. Speaker, I am for the protection of life. I could preach all kinds of sermons outside the House of Commons to defend the right to life and try to convince people. If my daughter came and told me she was pregnant, I would certainly try and persuade her not to have an abortion. However, those are my personal beliefs. That is my set of values.
But when I speak in the House, is that what I am supposed to defend? Shouldn't I try to organize our social order instead? That is my perception of the debate we are having today. It's all very well to say, I am against abortion, except in cases of incest or rape. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine how long it

July 26, 1988
Abortion
would take to prove this before a medical board? Who is going to determine whether a woman was raped? Who will be able to say, in front of whom, in front of which doctor, that it was a case of incest? I think it is too easy to say this.
We can satisfy our conscience. We can act very pro-life, if we happen to hold that position, but between the moment the problem is brought before a physician and the moment there is enough evidence to prove it was incest or rape, the child will already be born. I say we must be realistic. Of course we have an easy time of it. Earlier, I heard another Member say: A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant should realize this before. Before having sexual intercourse, I suppose. But what about the man's responsibility? Why put the entire onus on the woman, who is trapped, while we men can just go home and forget about it! I think it is unfair to look at the problem from that perspective, from the perspective of male morality alone. And what is our morality? To let others, to let women cope with a situation that men have created?
I say that when organizing this social order, we must take into account the position of the woman in this situation, and her desires and rights, but we must also define those rights in relation to the rights of others. I believe that the foetus has a right to life. But at what moment does the foetus exist? After the fourth week or the fifth week? I think we need legal and medical opinions. And then perhaps the rights of the foetus will have to take precedence over the rights of the woman, but there is also the right of the biological father. And there is also, according to the Supreme Court's judgment, the right of the woman to control her own body. I believe that if we want to organize this social order, we cannot do so solely on the basis of one set of values. We live in a society that is extremely pluralistic in its religious beliefs and its attitudes to life.
We have people from different countries. We are evolving into a pluralistic society that is much more permissive than before. Some of my colleagues have quoted the Bible and Scripture. Even if we quoted legal texts from 50 or 60 years ago, there was then a set of values to which 90 per cent of the population subscribed. Today this is no longer possible, and much as I feel at ease in a church and I agree with the bishops who set Catholic morality as a goal, Orthodox Jews set their morality as a goal and other religions set their morality as a goal. But there is a difference between proposing something as a value, which I support, and trying to impose it on those who do not have the same values. Since we live in a pluralist society with different opinions, I think that we have to take account of all these factors in organizing the social order.
That is why, just as I am opposed to free, unrestricted abortion, I believe that the State has the responsibility to consider the various opinions in society and to set a legal framework, not in a vague, imprecise motion like the one the Conservative Government presented, but in a series of precise clauses that would to some extent limit a woman's right, as described by the Supreme Court of Canada, to dispose of her
own body and determine when this right takes second place to the right of the unborn child. This must all be put in a legal context. I think that if the motion were more precise, we could perhaps draw some conclusions and positions for the Government, but as it is written, this is impossible. I believe that we must find a solution that certainly at the beginning of a pregnancy allows a woman to exercise some judgement on the future of the foetus she is carrying and to make her own decisions. I find it a pity that such a question must be decided by a majority of men. I would like there to be many more women in this House to help us make that decision. I am not ready to blame women who, in their conscience and because of the environment in which they live, decide to have an abortion.
In this House, we have all seen examples of families in our neighbourhood where such things have happened. I find it easy to make very impassioned speeches, but who is ready to jail a woman for deciding to have an abortion at the beginning of her pregnancy? I am not prepared to do that and that is why I ask those on the extremes, either pro-life or pro-choice, to be a little more reasonable in their approach and to distinguish between one's own deeply held beliefs and the organization of our society. Personally, as a legislator, my choice is to let women at the beginning of a pregnancy be free to choose, but I also say that the State has a responsibility to set limits for this freedom and that we must be presented not with a vague motion that goes nowhere but with a legal text, a Bill, that would enable not only Members of this House but all Canadians, men and women, to judge the value of the proposals contained in it, not just a vague motion of principle like the one in the resolution we have before us.


Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise today on the motion before us which deals with a very controversial and stirring issue. Of course, a matter as important as this one deserves much consideration and must be dealt with not emotionally but with wisdom and most of all with a cool head.
I cannot agree with the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) who, earlier, criticized the Government for having brought forward too vague a motion that will not necessarily become law if it is adopted.
Considering the complex and controversial nature of the issue, we will have to take as much time as we need to understand it fully and to have consultations, seek legal advice and other views likely to enlighten us to arrive at a more appropriate conclusion. To pass a motion or legislation hastily would seem to me a shunning of responsibilities, particularly on a matter of such enormous, vital importance.
Mr. Speaker, of course, I too am against abortion. I am sure that all Canadian men and women are against abortion. But we must not close our eyes, because there are times in life when decisions must be taken, and it is never easy especially on an issue as crucial as this one.
July 26, 1988

I am sure any woman who makes the painful decision to get an abortion, and I am referring to the physically and mentally painful aspects of it, does not do so with a light heart and takes that decision because she finds herself in a situation she considers desperate, she sees no end to the tunnel and no other way out.
1 also believe, Mr. Speaker, that before judging women who get abortions, we must rather judge ourselves as Parliamentarians and as a government.
It is obvious that the Government has a social responsibility. We often hear that, in some cases, when women reach the very sensitive and painful decision to get an abortion, it is due to a lack of resources. In the old days, it could have been because they were judged too harshly and condemned by society. Today women think that they want children, but cannot afford to raise them. So they decide not to bear children who might be victimized.
This is an economic issue which should not necessarily prevail over morals. But things being what they are, we cannot change every Canadian's mentality.
It seems to me that, in such circumstances, the Government should design programs to aid women, particularly single parents, poor women and homemakers.
I would be very happy to see and vote for a piece of legislation giving a salary to women who stay home to care for their children. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that if such a law were enacted, the abortion problem would be greatly reduced. If we could at that point have support for women in need, financial support of course as well as moral help and support, I believe the scourge or problem of abortion could be significantly reduced.
A lot of money is spent on other things, things that of course are often legitimate and acceptable, but in my view, Mr. Speaker, the most important thing, the most valuable institution in this country is still the family. And in this case, since it is the most important in my view, I believe it should be the priority for our Government. The priority of helping women who support and contribute to this country, who raise children, who work very hard to conceive them, to bring them up, and who are often considered careerless, lacklustre, some even say insignificant because they link a person's worth to a career or a high standard of living, and of course a woman who spends her life at home rearing children cannot at the same time have a career, she cannot go into business and earn a high income either.
Therefore, the sad thing about our society is that we pass judgment on those women, and we may be unfair to them.
Therefore, before we pass judgment on women, of course, I too do not accept that a girl or woman of any age be put in prison because she decided to get an abortion. All we would
Abortion
then be doing is trading one wrong for another. This would not solve the problem.
We should first provide women who find themselves in the difficult situation of having to make such a hard choice with an alternative. After providing them with the alternative support they deserve, I think then the Government perhaps should bring in much tougher legislation to deter some women from using abortion as a contraceptive method. This would be sad. My concern is that some might ultimately do that.
This is why I oppose abortion, because my concern is that some individuals could abuse that right if it were unrestricted.
So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that today's exercise will raise our consciences, will bring out the ideas and the issues and will lead us to reflect further and to seek expert advice.
After this conscience-raising debate, we will be in a much better position to present an excellent and real piece of legislation, which, of course, will have to be precise, and yet take into account the situation. We must not forget today's reality. We must not forget that we too often tend to be judgmental. These are victims in our society. Therefore, before passing judgment, I think we must encourage them through our own attitude.
I keep saying that, before judging a woman, we must offer alternatives in the form of assistance and, of course, a salary for the woman who has children, a measure which has long been hoped for. As a matter of fact, last week, I submitted a questionnaire to my constituents and it appears that a large percentage of the population is in favour of such a measure. Such a measure could get these women out of a distressing situation, confined as they are at home and unable to see any alternatives except through prostitution or even, when they are pregnant, by asking for an abortion, although we may not agree. But as a result of the situation they are stuck in without any possibility of getting out of they feel compelled to take such an unfortunate action.
Mr. Speaker, we should start by asking the question ourselves and the exercise we are involved in now is a step in that direction: we should adopt an attitude which is more fair, equitable and understanding toward these women who sometimes, because of their situation, are compelled to make decisions which they often regret afterwards, and we will end up with legislation to prevent some people from abusing the situation.
Often women have tried, and this is the reason I am against abortion, having heard during the public hearings which we held last year throughout Canada from a great many women who came and told us individually: "I tried on several occasions to get an abortion, but I failed. Finally, with time, I decided to accept this notion as a fact and to keep my baby." They are telling us today: "I am glad I kept my baby." This should silence those who claim that an unwanted child will be an abused child and that the wanted and planned child is a happy and well treated one. Such is not the case, Mr. Speaker.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
Now thanks to planning, families can have the number of children they want when they want them, etc., to the point where they can even determine the sex.
If that were the case there would be no mistreated children today. But unfortunately the contrary is true. There are more and more of them. So it is not because the child was planned, wanted, hoped for. There is no guarantee that the child will be well treated. None at all. Just like the opposite is also true. Nor is it because at the outset a woman did not want to become pregnant and did not want to bear a child. It does not necessarily mean either that the child will be mistreated. He will probably be the most loved. I know some cases which attest to this. And it does not prove either that the child will
not grow up to be an outstanding citizen, perhaps even the kind of good Parliamentarian we really need.
So, Mr. Speaker, for me this is an opportunity to reflect upon the issue and I urge all my colleagues to give serious consideration to this matter, and either of the two extreme positions which might be proposed or adopted seem totally unreasonable to me. I think that free abortion on request at any time for any woman is a cop out which I cannot accept. But there is the other extreme view that abortion should never be considered under any circumstances, and again I must express disagreement. It seems to me there should be a way to reach a compromise somewhere, and I leave it to the experts to shed more light on the issue, but there must be a middle course which all Canadian men and women would find acceptable.

Tuesday, July 26, 1988

The House continued its sitting.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I fully realize and am cognizant of the fact that most of what can be said about the issue of abortion in Canada has been said in this debate. However, I think it behooves every Member of the House of Commons to take the opportunity to express his or her own views on the issue of abortion, for the benefit of their constituents and all other Canadians who are willing to listen to that expression of views.
In order to express my views, for the records of the House of Commons, and anybody else who is interested enough to review them, let me begin by examining the motion placed before the House of Commons. Basically, the Government in this motion has asked the House of Commons in Parliament to achieve a balance between the right of a woman to liberty and security of her person and the responsibility of society to protect the unborn.
I think that that is a laudable goal, but I am afraid that it is not the issue that now exists in Canada. I say that because we are here debating this matter simply because we cannot bring Canadians to a consensus on this issue. Even though the Government and Members of the House of Commons may try to be even-handed, may try to come down the middle of the road, there are in fact two totally different views with respect to abortion in Canada, that is to say, there are groups of people who have banded together on one side or the other of the issue and demand that their view be accepted. That is the problem we face. Coming down the middle of the road is not the solution. It is indeed the problem because too many Canadians will not accept that approach to the issue of abortion.
Quite frankly, and contrary to the resolution, I think the House of Commons and the Government of Canada and every other person must take a position and then be judged on that position. It may seem difficult, it may even be cruel in the circumstances of a real and growing and living society, but it is the fact of the matter, in my view.
What am I talking about? 1 am talking about the pro-life view or anti-abortion view on the one hand and the pro-choice or the individual right of the woman on the other hand. How do you rationalize those two opposing views? We are here because the Supreme Court of Canada failed to rationalize those two views. If an individual looks at the decision of the Supreme Court in tlie Morgentaler case, one might say that
the judges of the Supreme Court in some cases were Solomon-like in their decision. They looked at the two opposing views, that is the right of the mother and the right of the unborn, and tried to make a compromise between those two connected but in a sense different views.
1 recall specifically that Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, in expressing her judgment, took that kind of Solomon-like approach by saying simply, here we have a problem, it relates to the termination of pregnancy, so what we will do is look at the whole of that pregnancy and in fact cut it off in the middle. On the one side we will say pro life or preservation of life in the later stages, and on the other side we will say the right of the mother to terminate the pregnancy in the earlier stages.
That obviously represented an attempt similar to what Solomon did in the famous case involving cutting the baby in half and looking for the real mother to object. Unfortunately, that view has not, in my opinion, been accepted by a great majority of Canadians. They do not believe in compromise on the issue. That is the problem we have to face. If compromise could be achieved, if Canadians could come to a consensus on the issue, then the difficulty would dissipate. Therefore, let us not put that aside. The choice has to be made between the two opposing disparate positions.
As I said, Madam Justice Wilson tried to deal with it, and our problem is that that decision is not accepted by a great many Canadians. The solution is not to rely on the Supreme Court of Canada decision. The solution lies in Parliament making a decision.
What can Parliament decide? Is the House of Commons capable of rendering a decision on the issue of abortion? That leads me to a review of the current situation.
In 1982, Members of this House of Commons, with the consent and concurrence of nine of the 10 provincial Premiers, adopted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That Charter contained very specific provisions. I do not recall, when I attended here on Parliament Hill in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen at the signing of the Charter, anyone standing up and saying: Do not sign the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There was almost unanimous support for the Charter, although there were some very important objections.
However, the point is that we made the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the law of Canada, and now we must live with its provisions. One of those provisions grants to individual Canadians rights which the Supreme Court of Canada, I think quite properly, has interpreted as meaning in the case of a pregnant woman the right to terminate a pregnancy in certain circumstances and at a certain point in time.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
I do not quarrel with the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I certainly do not quarrel with the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of it. However, that allows us to look only at what our law-making power is in the Parliament of Canada, and that is to enact criminal laws. Indeed, that lies at the heart of the Supreme Court decision in the Morgentaler case involving Section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
It is worthwhile reminding Parliamentarians that that provision of the Criminal Code made it an offence for a mother to have an abortion and it was punishable by imprisonment for two years. In the case of other persons involved in an act of abortion it was an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for life. That is what the Supreme Court of Canada was looking at.
I think some people will understand that such a law was questionable. Some people would wonder whether that was the right approach to what is basically a social problem. Therefore, we should not be too critical of the Supreme Court of Canada when they tackled this problem of Section 251 of the Criminal Code and the extreme punishment that was imposed in certain circumstances on those involved in abortion. It is understandable that the law was questioned.
Therefore, what can Parliament do, having received the judgment of the Supreme Court? There are two things it can do, in my opinion. The first is to enact a new provision of the Criminal Code that does not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second, if Parliament is determined to abolish abortion or restrict it more than the previous law did, then we must seek an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All Members of the House know that that involves concurrence of the provinces under the current formula, which is seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population.
It is very clear. If you want to change the abortion law in Canada from the current void that exists following the decision of the Supreme Court, you have to enact a new provision of the Criminal Code because that is the only power Parliament has with respect to abortion.
Second, if you are not satisfied that a criminal law of less force and effect than Section 251 is sufficient, then we must have an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That, simply stated, is why I object to the resolution we have before us. It does not address either of these problems. It does not make clear what the change in the Criminal Code would be, and it does not even deal with the matter of a possible amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I think it is a terrible flaw in the motion that it does not mention punishment. We are talking about criminal law which means offences and punishment. Every Canadian should know that if we pass judgment on this motion, we should be condemning people involved in abortion to imprisonment or some other punishment.
I am not saying that that is wrong. Indeed, that is what criminal law provisions are all about, but let us have it in the motion. The great crime in Canada is that 60,000 and more abortions take place each year, with the consequences we have all heard described. Is the alternative to place 60,000 women in jail? Do we want to stop abortions by punishing those who have abortions with jail terms?
I do not know what the people of Canada want. I have not got a clue. I have heard submissions made to me from both sides. I know there is a real concern about the right to life and the pro-life movement. I accept that and understand it. However, what are the alternatives? That is what we have to face.
I do not believe that this resolution helps us face the real problem. That is why I introduced in the House of Commons last Monday a new private Member's Bill, Bill C-312, which proposes an Abortion Law Interim Measures Act. That Bill spells out very clearly that abortion is an offence punishable by two years' imprisonment, but there is an exception. If an abortion is medically necessary and that is certified by a medical practitioner, there is no offence. Indeed, if a woman who believes her life is in danger and that an abortion is medically necessary has one but does not have access to medical assistance of the kind described in the provision, then there is also no offence.
One of the complaints and concerns of the Supreme Court of Canada was that the previous law did not fall equally upon all Canadian women. Those who had easy access to medical practitioners and hospitals could comply with the provisions, and other expectant mothers who did not want to carry their children to full term did not have that kind of access. That meant an inequality in the law that in effect destroyed the law from within. Its failure to provide for equal application across Canada to all Canadians made it invalid in the eyes of the Supreme Court. I do not think anyone can blame the Supreme Court for coming to that conclusion because if there is one thing to which we all subscribe, and I defy anyone to deny this, it is the equality of all Canadians before the law. Once we see on the face of a law a failure to observe equality, then the law is worthless.
Through my Bill, I have tried to overcome the objection that the provision of the Criminal Code under Section 251 was unequal in its application. I have also dealt with the second point, which is that we can enact a criminal law and we can also seek an amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect the unborn. If we are not willing to seek an amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect the unborn, then we are not serious about doing anything about abortion law in Canada. Through the simple expedient of amending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by extending it to include the unborn, we can enact a law that protects the foetus.
July 26, 1988

Historically, and I do not think anyone will deny this, a distinction was made under Canadian law, and under the British law on which our law is based, that until a child was born, the child had no rights under the law. Indeed, in the Criminal Code of Canada, there are offences like infanticide, which is when a child is killed at birth. There are offences like concealing a child and failing to provide assistance at childbirth. It is clearly understood that until a child is born, under the law of Canada, the child has no rights.
We have faced this problem in the law for literally centuries. We have faced it in Canada since Confederation, and before that it has been faced by British law. Therefore, we are talking about a very substantive change in the law if we want to protect the unborn child, and we need a constitutional amendment to do so. I am sure the officers of the Department of Justice understand that. I am sure that that is the advice they would give to those who say that they want a law that protects the unborn to the extent that some Hon. Members have mentioned.
The only way we will get such an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is by going to the provinces and obtaining their concurrence to such a change. That is exactly what I have provided for in my Bill. I have provided that upon the enactment of the legislation I have proposed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would have to convene a conference of First Ministers to deal with the matter of a change in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or, alternatively, introduce it as a priority item at a conference of First Ministers. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is so asked, he would prepare an amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that would achieve that purpose.
Let me make what I am saying abundantly clear. If we are to deal with abortion in the manner indicated by a great many Members, that is to say if we are to have greater protection for the lives of the unborn and assurance that abortions will be performed only in very extreme circumstances, then we must have a change to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must have a constitutional base for a law. Otherwise, we are restricted to the kind of law that I have proposed in the Bill I have introduced, Bill C-312 which has been entitled the Abortion Law Interim Measures Act.
My solution to the problem is to have legislation before the House and to seek a constitutional amendment. Of course, we must recognize all the time that if a constitutional amendment cannot be achieved, if the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada with all its lofty deliberations refuses to amend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if Parliament approves an amendment but the provinces do not concur, then we have to recognize that we cannot change the abortion law of Canada in the substantial way that many Canadians and indeed many Members of this House seek. That is the issue and let us deal with it. Let us not hide behind resolutions.
Let me end by simply reading into the record the statement of Archbishop James M. Hayes, President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. He said:
Abortion
The Government has introduced a Motion that proposes the totally
unacceptable gestational approach for a new Canadian abortion law.
The position of the Catholic Church is that human life begins at conception
and must be valued, respected and safeguarded from the beginning.
To a degree, this is an exercise in futility. Neither those who try to achieve protection for life like the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, nor the people who believe in freedom of choice and the status quo, will accept this resolution with whatever amendments may be made. I would like to see Bill C-312 or some similar legislation passed, and I wash my hands of this resolution.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, none of us feels comfortable with being required to engage in this debate. I think it is an example of one of those situations in which Members of Parliament or of any legislature often find themselves, which is that they have to take a position and make their position known. There are times when one cannot be whipped from one side or the other by one's electorate. One must express one's view on the basis of one's philosophical, moral, and ethical point of view. I must say that I was disappointed in the intervention just made by my hon. colleague across the way. He pointed out that there are two quite different opinions on the issue. He said that there could be no compromise, then proceeded to take both sides. I hope that I will not be a victim of that approach.
We have entered into this debate tonight because the Supreme Court, almost exactly six months ago, handed down a decision which, on the basis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms threw out Section 251 of the Criminal Code which regulates abortions in Canada. In so doing it once again posed the dilemma of reconciling divergent, often polarized opinions among Canadians.
There are very many Canadians, and I was among them, who did not see that decision as a victory of the enlightened over those of darkness. It was not a victory, in my view, for abortion on demand, and it was not an occasion for those on either side to regard the others as either stupid or unprincipled because they did not share these views of the polarized factions in this debate.
This is a significant issue to all Canadians. It is an issue of great controversy, an issue of great disagreement, an issue which tests Parliamentarians and tests the Government, a test which the Government fails by the very nature of its response.
We are given a resolution, which I will discuss in a moment, which may or may not be adopted, which promises legislation as a result of the outcome of this debate. Yet, we know that what we are involved in here is a charade. It is another example of the failure of the Government to live up to its responsibilities, another example of a Government which, in failing to live up to its responsibilities, would like to fool the Canadian people into believing that it is doing something of significance.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
What is going to happen to whatever comes out of this deliberation? If this resolution is passed, what will happen to it? Is the Government going to introduce legislation before the end of this Parliament? I do not think there is anyone in this country who seriously believes that there will not be an election before this matter is resolved. Therefore, why bother?
The only appropriate action for which the Government had plenty of time was to introduce legislation, to take responsibility, to take the knocks of having acted as a Government should, and bring forth legislation which could be discussed in detail and which would provide Canadians with an understanding of where they stood. Most important, the Government should have attempted to reconcile the divergent views in this country which must be reconciled.
We have basically two quite polarized, divergent positions on abortion which have been clearly identified in debate. There
is,	on the one hand, the pro-life position and, on the other, the pro-choice position. The Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) indicated that virtually all Canadians are on one side or the other and, indeed, must be on one side or the other.
His experience indicates that that is so. My experience indicates the contrary. My experience indicates that the great majority of Canadians would like to see a position somewhere in between those two extremes, because they are extremes.
As I have said before, this matter divides Canadians on the basis of deeply held religious and philosophical convictions. Our task is to resolve this problem, to produce legislation which is permissive, and to produce legislation which does not compel anyone to act counter to their religious or philosophical beliefs.
Let us examine those two sets of beliefs. On the one hand we have the pro-life position, most clearly, but not exclusively, articulated by the Catholic Church. It is beautiful in its consistency and not open to attack, and I am not here to attack
it.	That position is that we have, at every period of gestation, from the moment of conception, a human life itself.
That position argues that there really is no distinction between the potential for human life and human life. That is not a position which St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Aristotle, or even the Catholic Church until a little over 100 years ago, accepted. It was clear to the philosophers in that church, and to others, that there was a biological distinction to be made between an embryo, an early foetus, and a fully developed human being. Separate from such considerations, as an almost life-long biologist, I am convinced, because the evidence is clear, that there is a distinction between an embryo and an infant that has the characteristics of a human being defined by St. Thomas Aquinas as a rational being, a being which can exist independently and is capable of thought.
However, that is the position of the pro-lifers, that life in its potential is equivalent to human life and that its consistency extends, not only to the point of conception but beyond
because it accords to the egg and the sperm equivalent respect. That is the basis for opposition to artificial methods of birth control. This is a belief deeply held by many Canadians and they are offended, as their beliefs would have them be offended, by any attack on that which they define as human life.
On the other hand, we have those who represent the prochoice position. They are conscious of the many instances in which women have been driven to have abortions and the very many situations in which such abortions are justified, and cognizant of the imposition, mainly by males, upon the abilities of women to make decisions. This is the position which has been described as abortion on demand. It has been interpreted far too much on the basis that that kind of position means the trivialization of life.
I have difficulty with the pure pro-choice point of view when it is expressed exclusively in terms of the need of a woman to have complete control over her body. Surely it is possible to argue that in certain circumstances and over a period of time during gestation that can be true, as the Supreme Court at least recognized in terms of the judgment of Justice Bertha Wilson who pointed out that there ought to be increasing restrictions depending upon the stages of development. What is offensive to me in the free-choice position, justified exclusively on the basis of a woman's control of her own body, is that the question of reproduction is not simply a question of the decision of an individual at all stages. It cannot be.
Reproduction of humankind is not just a question for the individual; it is a question for humanity. As Justice Wilson recognized, it must include some consideration of the interest of society in general as it is expressed by the state. Therefore, neither position is acceptable to me.
However, a rational position can be taken and it is, at least in some measure, recognized in this resolution as it was in the judgment of Justice Bertha Wilson. It is to recognize that as development occurs, certainly in the early stages it is appropriate that the decision to abort a foetus be made between a woman and her doctor. It is not abortion on demand; it is abortion on the basis of choice, with full consideration of the health of the woman in consultation with appropriate medical practitioners. That is as it should be during the early period.
Surely it ought to be evident to all that in the later stages of pregnancy there is a fully viable human being, an entity that would be fully viable if born at that stage. Recently, one of my assistants gave birth prematurely to an infant at six and one-half months. Surely it must be clear at that stage that we are dealing with something other than the abortion of a foetus, other than the termination of a pregnancy that does not entail larger values and considerations than abortion normally would in the context of the appropriateness of freedom of choice.
July 26, 1988

Most European nations have recognized these limits. Most recognize that there should be sharp restrictions on access to abortion at the stage of potential independent viability. The test should be the survival of the mother and other such significant considerations. The question of what to do between the twelfth week and twentieth week should be determined in the deliberations of whatever committee will deal with this resolution. It seems clear to me that the rational position to be taken, which can be justified philosophically and morally, involves free choice during the early stages of pregnancy with increasing limits thereafter, as this resolution proposes. That is the position that the vast majority of Canadians would accept.
1 believe it is an indication of the rationality of most Canadians that they have not adopted either of the two extreme positions, however meritorious they may be to those who hold them. We must find a means to reconcile appropriately the diversity of opinion that exists. It cannot be either of the two extremes suggested by the Hon. Member for Halifax West. It must be a compromise position that does not insist that one employ abortion and one that does not exclude it as a medical means to deal with serious problems which we all know necessitate abortion in many instances. When abortion is not available it leads to all kinds of tragedy brought about by illegal abortions.
1 am not standing in this House in support of abortion. No pro-choice individual to whom I have talked, nor anyone I know concerned with any part of this issue, likes abortion any more than they like amputation or other severe medical solutions to a medical problem. If we want to eliminate abortion, we should begin to address the circumstances which have led to abortions.
Twenty-three per cent of terminated pregnancies involved teenagers. Teenagers are all too frequently denied advice and counselling on sexual behaviour. According to a study conducted a couple of years ago, teenagers spend an average of two minutes a day talking to their families. We have created an environment in which the family is under the test. We will not solve the problem by banning abortions. We can certainly do a great deal more than we have to prevent unwanted pregnancy, which means information on contraception should be available and young people should be provided with the kind of knowledge about sexual behaviour that they need.
We must do much more to strengthen the family. If we are concerned about the issue of abortion and deal with that problem in the next Parliament, we ought also to address the other significant issues arising with respect to reproduction. These include the new reproductive technologies, the use of foetal tissue for experimental purposes, genetic engineering, and all scientific and technological manipulations that can take place to shape human beings or select the gender of offspring. All these matters are of equal importance to the future of humankind and to the family.
If we ever resolve this issue, I hope we will also address the other considerable problems that technology presents to the
Abortion
future of humankind as we know it, and the future of society as we would like to have it.


Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, let me start my speech against abortion by quoting His Holiness John Paul II: "Life must be defended from the moment of conception against everything that threatens it, such as famine and war; it must be cured of anything that weakens or dishonours it, such as illness, alcohol and drug abuse; it must be protected from anything that debases it, such as violence, sub-human living conditions, degrading working conditions and so many ills of that kind." And the Holy Father, at the end of a 10-day trip in the United States, in September 1987, thanked Vice President George Bush with these words: "The final test of your greatness is the way you treat each human being, particularly those who are weak and defenceless. Feeding the poor and welcoming refugees, strengthening the social fabric of the nation, encouraging an authentic advancement of women, guaranteeing the rights of minorities, pursuing disarmament while ensuring self-defence, none of that will succeed unless the respect for life and its protection in law are granted to every human being."
Mr. Speaker, the motions put forward when the political climate does not seem to point in that direction, appear illogical, abnormal and inhuman, and contain drastic provisions which would not even be necessary in most cases if we bothered, in this society, to offer serious sex education programs, particularly with regard to contraception. Both matters go hand in hand. If people only hear about abortion, they won't think in terms of contraception and that will lead to abuses tied to a serious act which represents the termination of a human life through barbarous means and should not have its place in a human and civilized society.
Mr. Speaker, to make myself quite clear and illustrate what I just said, I would like to quote an article from a book entitled Les trois menaces a la societe contemporaine written by Father Lawrence Abello and published by Mouvement Pro-Vivere inc.. This article called "Victim declared subhuman" reads as follows: "It is no wonder that so many in our society say, without any proof, that the unborn child is not a human being. Throughout history, every time exploiters wanted to kill a group of persons, they claimed that the victims were subhuman. For example, higher castes, slave owners, explorers and Nazis have rationalized that untouchables, slaves, savages and Jews were subhuman, non-persons in the eyes of the law, and therefore did not even have the right to life, which is the foundation of all rights." Because of such de-humanization, the above exploiters in the past could not realize that killing their victims was killing human beings. In the same way, in our present society, many people cannot realize that abortion is murder.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
For those who are reluctant to characterize abortion as murder or to compare abortion clinics to communist or Nazi extermination camps, let us look at what happens in abortion clinics.
Mr. Speaker, I will refer to two cases which, morally speaking, are typical of all abortions to the extent that in each abortion an unborn child is killed directly. The only unique feature in both cases was the publicity they enjoyed. The first one is the Waddill case. We must refer to a 1977 court decision in California, followed by another decision in 1978, and the proceedings that led to those decisions. Mr. Speaker, in that case the abortionist replaced part of the amniotic fluid with a salt solution, which not only poisons the system and burns the skin of the unborn child, but also causes its premature expulsion from the womb. The baby girl survived the abortionist's attempt at burning and poisoning her, and also her traumatic and premature expulsion from the womb. Did the baby survive the abortion? In fact, during an hour, half suffocated, she cried after escaping the doctor's attempt at taking her life. Then the doctor returned, caught her by the throat and strangled her to death.
An abortion as we now understand it is not complete so long as the child is not put to death. That abortionist could not claim self-defence or the need to protect a victim from an aggressor. Therefore, from an ethical point of view, how can that abortion be characterized?
Mr. Speaker, that was a direct killing of a harmless human being, that is a human being that threatened nobody's life through a positive act. Even if that type of crime is generally called an abortion, or euphemistically a pregnancy termination or removal of the product of conception, the fact remains it is pure murder.
The other case, Mr. Speaker, is the testimony of a nurse in September 1981 to a Vancouver radio station, CJOR, during a program chaired by the former Minister of Health of British Columbia, Rafe Mair. After attending a hysterectomy abortion, the nurse snatched away the living baby on the abortionist's sterile table in order to baptize him, Mr. Speaker. The abortionist turned to the anaesthetist and shouted: "Did you see that? She snatched my specimen away!" The nurse replied: "I just baptized your specimen Paul."
Mr. Speaker, is not using human beings as guinea pigs before killing them what went on in concentration camps? Let us recall that morally, those abortion cases are no different from any other kind of abortion, either by means of abortives such as drugs and intra-uterine instruments, or by an abortionist who pulls a baby to pieces by means of a vacuum tube, carves it out with a blade or removes the uterine wall to prevent the baby from implanting, the so-called expansion and curettage. He ties up the umbilical cord to suffocate the baby or simply throw the aborted baby into a garbage can where it dies after struggling for a period of between 15 minutes and three hours, etc.
Faced with such cases, Mr. Speaker, any refusal on our part to recognize that abortion clinics today are the equivalent of concentration camps is to deny reality.
Two remarks must be made here: First of all, in the Waddill case, if the physician for instance had strangled the same baby, also prematured, but born in the delivery room across the street from the abortion clinic, he might have been accused of murder instead of being paid for carrying out a medical procedure. Which means that the life of the baby would have protected by the legislation only if someone, perhaps the mother had, wanted it. But to allow any interested person to determine at whim whether or not the baby in question is a human being with the right to live reminds us of Nazi methods.
Mr. Speaker, the Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup riding which I have the honour and privilege to represent in the House is mostly a rural riding. I have made it my duty over the past few years to visit one of the finest counties in Quebec and I have had the opportunity to discuss with groups representing the area, including 1 'Age d'or, the AFEAS groups, Maison des femmes, Knights of Columbus, Cercle des fermieres, Filles d'Isabelle, and a great many others, and I asked their opinion about such issues as capital punishment and abortion. Mr. Speaker, I often had extraordinary exchanges with fathers and mothers with families of 10, 12, 15 children, sometimes even more, and during a survey I carried out as early as 1985 on the abortion issue, 65 per cent of my constituents were against abortion. Some in all of its forms, others with restrictions.
Mr. Speaker, even more recently, on April 22 last, Mrs. Adrienne Tanguay of Saint-Pascal and Mrs. Gertrude Madore of Kamouraska held a press conference to hand me a petition against abortion signed by 8,016 residents of 18 parishes in the Riviere-du-Loup and Kamouraska regions. They also handed me a similar petition signed by 698 residents of five parishes in the Transcontinental, that is the Pohenegomook region.
These two women, both of whom are mothers and grandmothers, acted spontaneously without the support of an organization, simply bacause they love life, consider abortion to be a crime and believe that it is their duty to defend innocent and defenceless beings, "choosing to act in silence for those who die in silence".
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the idea that human life must be respected is very important in the long run because of the extremely negative consequences which can occur otherwise. After having been conditioned little by little to accept the idea that the human foetus is nothing more than a sandwich, human beings could very well reach the stage where they seek to destroy themselves more or less unconsciously. Euthanasia would rapidly become, with all its dangerous aspects, another step in this lack of respect for human life. People would then start asking, as in the case of abortion, who must die and when and in the case of which disease and below which IQ or following which emotional reaction.
July 26, 1988

Mr. Speaker, the role of health professionals and physicians could become dangerously ambivalent since in too many cases they would begin to wonder whether they should treat a disease, save a life, or quite simply end one. The cowboy approach might prevail quickly, and by that I mean it might become very easy to eliminate any individual whose behaviour is frustrating or embarrassing, or whose face one does not like.
The interest of any human being commands respect for one's own life and that of others, and everything begins with the life of the human foetus.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you the true story of a mother who is glad she said no to abortion. Here it is:
My baby gave me a reason to live. I was glad I decided to keep my child. My daughter was beautiful and beaming with joy. Her small and warm body made me dream. She was entirely dependent on me and gave me a reason to fight.
After a difficult pregnancy and delivery which required several weeks of rest and hospital care, Marlene finally got her daughter back. She is happy and looks to the future with confidence.
Marlene says:
1 had agreed to live with the father of my child in Quebec City. In the beginning I was proud to have my own daughter, at last. We shared a nice apartment, my friend had a job and I was getting social assistance for myself and my daughter. We had everything to be happy, but we were not. There was a big problem between us. I was never satisfied. 1 was independent and demanding, and gave little. I no longer wanted to stay with my friend who did not provide financial support since I was independent. Moreover, I was not satisfied with his educating skills for our daughter. So 1 returned to Jonquiere with my daughter where I went back to school.
It is at that time that 1 got back in touch with my girl friend Claude. 1 was really happy to see her and we renewed our friendship. But she seemed different to me. She had changed. During our separation, she had become a Christian and had learned to put her confidence in God. She took me one night to her church and I was really impressed by the atmosphere of the place. 1 felt at peace. Claude gave me a bible that evening and I started to read. I did not understand everything but 1 kept on reading.
Time went by and my little girl was growing up. But as I watched her grow up, I started thinking 1 had failed in the way I brought her up. This bothered me and it became an obsession. That was when 1 turned to God to ask Him for His help. When I was reading my bible, I saw in the Old Testament that many problems were due to the fact that people ignored God. My friend Claude also told me that if 1 talked to God, I could be sure He would listen.
And she concludes as follows:
I have always been very proud of my daughter. I never regretted keeping my baby and refusing to have an abortion. God has always watched over us. He has always been true.
Marlene maintains that although being a single mother is very difficult, she never regretted keeping her child.
When she was small, 1 marvelled ...
... she says,...
... at her very presence and at the progress she made. I loved to watch her learn about life. Later on, when times were difficult, her presence meant something to fight for. And often when I felt hurt, her little arms around my neck were a great comfort.
After my mariage, when we had our other children, my husband and I, she was a great help in taking care of the little ones and their education. We are
Abortion
really very proud of her. Today, she is a lovely young girl of 13 who is a real joy. We could not do without her.
Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of stories like this about women or unmarried mothers who said no to abortion.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I ask God to enlighten all Members of this House in this important historic debate, and especially during the vote on Thursday, so that reason may prevail.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to take part in the debate on a subject that I think is increasingly important. But before getting into the subject, I must tell you that looking at the motion the Conservative Government presented, I must express my disappointment, as my colleagues have done, and I think that Quebecers and Canadians are disappointed with the Conservative Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who lacked the courage to present a Bill.
As we speak, I think many Quebecers are certainly asking themselves questions. Why did the Conservative Government not have the courage six months after the Supreme Court decision to bring in a Bill to amend the Supreme Court decision? Why did the Conservative Government wait until July 26? We will discuss it on July 27, at a time when many people are away on vacation. Why did the Government wait so long to come up with just a motion? Why did the Government only bring forward a motion which, in my opinion, is not sufficiently clear and does not meet the needs of the situation? The Government already failed in its attempt to submit to the House of Commons three options for motions that were only meant to sound out people's opinions. Since the Official Opposition, the NDP and even most Conservative Members disagreed with this approach, Mr. Speaker, we would have thought that the Government would have learned its lesson and that it would have brought us at least a Bill to legislate clearly and precisely on the abortion issue.
Mr. Speaker, all that we have before us are unclear wishes.
The Government's motion reads as follows:
Such legislation should prohibit the performance of an abortion ...
I am all for prohibiting abortion.
... subject to the following exceptions:
And then it reads as follows:
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 well being;
My first question is: What is meant by "earlier stages of pregnancy"? Two weeks? Three weeks? Four weeks? Ten weeks? Twenty weeks? Mr. Speaker, no one in this House can honestly defend the interests of his or her constituents and vote on such a vague motion.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
If one reads well the definition, apart from the imprecise nature of the phrase "earlier stages of pregnancy", the decision is linked to a doctor's decision. On the other hand, the same paragraph states the following:
... when the woman in consultation with a qualified medical practitioner
decides to terminate her pregnancy;...
Then, there is a second attitude. Not only do we not know the duration, according to the Government, but in this case, contrary to the first option which requires that the physician should decide with the pregnant woman whether she should end her pregnancy for physical or mental health reasons, it is the opposite: it is the woman who, after seeing a physician, whatever his decision, may decide to have an abortion. Now, if we look at the English side, the interpretation is different: It is the pregnant woman who, with her physician's agreement, may decide to end her pregnancy.
There is a third option, still in the part which deals with the "early stages of pregnancy" of which we do not know the duration. Is it six months? In this option, the termination is performed by a qualified medical practitioner.
In the second paragraph:
When, during the subsequent stages of pregnancy:
Again, it is not clear. We do not know what the Government's intentions are. I do not think there is a single Member in this House who is serious about his responsibilities to his constituents who can support such a motion.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you right away that I will vote against the Government's motion.
When we look at the amendments moved by some Members who are extreme Pro-Life supporters who came to the House and said: Abortion should be permitted only when the physician decides that the very life of the mother is at stake. Or in the case of rape, incest, or other difficulties, perhaps for mental health reasons, following consultation with a physician and at the request of the pregnant woman, the termination of the pregnancy is necessary. Unfortunately, I find that those who support the extreme Pro-Life position lack compassion. Because the decision we have to make today, in addition to our religious belief-a while ago, someone was praying to the Lord who, I think, was always quite generous with women faced with such enormous difficulties, because God would have permitted the termination of the pregnancy for different reasons.
There is the other extreme represented by the Pro-Choice supporters who are promoting abortion. I do not care for this approach at all. I would have liked it better had the Government introduced a Bill stating: We are against free abortion on request. I honestly believe there are not that many Members or that many people in Quebec and in the rest of Canada who favour unrestricted abortion. But it could have been allowed with certain limits for various reasons, limits with respect to the time to make decisions, not partisan decisions but decisions made by people fully conversant with the legal and medical aspects, people who would be able to tell us which month or the number of weeks which would be acceptable.
1 would also have liked it if the Government had tabled a Bill and announced a family assistance program, a program to
set up clinics, but not the kind of clinics where an individual or a young girl for instance realizes that she is pregnant and thinks that her parents will not want to see their unmarried pregnant daughter, so her companion says: We are too young, we have no money, so the first decision is to say that we have no choice-and this is quite human-we will have an abortion. So she goes to a clinic, something like the Morgentaler clinic, and the attendant for whom this is the only interest, the only way to earn a living, the only employment, says to her: So you came to have an abortion. Well, fill in this form and we will perform the abortion.
I would have preferred to see a Bill where the Government provides for financing clinics jointly with the provinces across Canada. As in the example I just gave you, a young girl or young couple would come to the clinic and explain their situation and ask for advice. However, the decision would still be up to them. And before opting for the most extreme solution, because there may be people who decide to have an abortion because they don't think they would be able to afford a child, perhaps the Government could make provision in the legislation for some kind of financial assistance during the initial years for what we used to call unmarried mothers, if that is still the term used today. The clinic would include social workers and health professionals who could offer a range of choices, and when the girl or the couple go home after two days, they may have decided, although when they first arrived at the clinic they were in favour of an abortion, they may have decided differently because they were initially unaware there was a program that could help them. And there would be a way to explain this to the parents and get them to accept it. And there would also be the question of adoption. There would be several options. And after that, the decision would be up to the woman.
I think it would have been better to have a debate around a Bill, which I think would have had very good results, and we could have proposed some solutions to the problem we are confronted with today, and certain sums of money would have been allocated, and we would not have had a series of good intentions that will be allowed to gather dust until after the election.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister of Canada did not have the courage of his convictions. Sad but true, it has been six months since the Conservative Government realized it had to face up to its responsibilities. And it is particularly unfortunate that the Government brought us into this debate near the end, just before an election, and the only reason we are discussing this subject today is as a face-saving measure, to avoid losing any votes.
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) cannot show courage, he does not deserve to lead the Government. Extremists often pretend that senior citizens are all pro-life. But in every constituency, including mine, we fiild some older people who are totally against abortion and others who understand, who, because they had children and for other reasons, had to get an abortion since it was the only option. People accept it today.
July 26, 1988

It is no longer a matter of age, but rather a humane approach in my view that a the majority of Quebecers, a majority of Canadian women and Montreal women today share. I believe a majority of the Canadian people support a middle position rather than either of the two extremes.
It is not a strict matter of principles, namely that a woman's body is involved and the decision is hers. Because it will be a man's body and the decision will be his-if one decides to take one's own life, one will take one's own life. And it is not strictly a matter of pro-life.
Therefore, at the other extreme, independent from the moral implications for families, those who maintain, and I base my reasoning ... if we now look at the trend toward child-parent reunion, what we see on television or in newspapers, reunion associations, mothers who 20 or 30 years ago, for various reasons, were forced to abandon their child... and as we remember, what 30 years ago being an unwed mother was like . . . but today, this is accepted and there is a very generous realization, nobody turns away anymore, but 30 years ago matters were different.
If we look at all those persons who are interviewed, they did not decide alone. It was not the mother's decision, it was a choice forced upon her by her parents, thinking... my intention is not to hark back in order to blame anyone, I am simply recalling those facts in order to show people who believe that today the free choice is strictly that of the woman, she would decide-I believe that this could happen today and that in the absence of specialist advice we would see today what we saw 25 or 30 years ago. Abortions would be forced upon young girls against their will by their parents, or a husband or spouse, having decided not to have an unwanted child, would force his wife or spouse into abortion where she would have decided otherwise.
Therefore I prefer to check-and I understand how couples in a difficult situation could turn to abortion first.
But I go back to the importance of having clinics that are not exclusively abortion clinics but rather family counselling and planning clinics where health professionnals would soon discover that an abortion was not the first choice nor the decision of a wife, a spouse, a pregnant woman who had yielded to pressures from her husband or her companion and had come to the clinic, but when she got there, those professionals could perhaps give her advice and suggest ways to convince her companion that the pregnancy would be a happy experience and that the birth of the child might bring much more joy than anticipated.
So, Mr. Speaker, I again raise these questions and I would hope that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice will answer tomorrow. I have two minutes left. Why did the Government wait six months after the Supreme Court judgement to react? After it tried to present three motions and most Members refused to take a stand on them, saying that they wanted a clear and precise Bill, why did the Government again present us with just a motion, one that is imprecise and that no Member of Parliament can accept? Why does the
Abortion
Government bring such an important subject up for discussion on July 26 or 27? Why did the Government not wait for the session to resume in September, if it did not want to call an election immediately? Why have this sham discussion, which is what I think it is? Perhaps on Thursday morning, if one listens to the speeches and follows what people are saying ... I have not heard most Members who have spoken say that they would vote for the Government's motion.
So it is possible that we will wake up on Thursday to find that the Government's motion has been beaten, that the amendments from the various groups have been defeated, and that we are right back where we started. And the Government knew very well that this was a possibility, because among those who have spoken against the motion and condemned the Government's behaviour are Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives.
So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude, my time is up. But tomorrow, I would like either the Prime Minister, who I think has lacked courage, or the Minister of Justice to answer the questions that I asked them.


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, before entering debate on this issue, which I think is the most important issue facing Canadians today, I want the House to hear the observations of Mother Teresa, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. She said that the nations with legalized abortions are the poorest of nations. She said that it took centuries for our civilizations to recognize a legal personhood of blacks, with the right to equal protection of the law. She said that it took a decision of the Privy Council in 1929 to determine that a woman was a legal person and therefore eligible for appointment to the Senate. She said that surely the time had come for Canadians and Canadian leaders, with a large revision of human rights, to recognize the unborn, the weakest, the most helpless of mankind, who have no less a claim to freedom and equality and logically the right to live.
This debate must not be treated lightly. The argument presented today and in the following days will be seriously considered when a law to replace that which was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada is brought forward later this year. It is my intention in the time allotted to me to present arguments based on facts and common sense and in harmony with our Constitution and the Charter of Rights.
I find that I cannot support the motion in front of this House without amendment. My position is that abortion should only be permitted when two independent and qualified medical practitioners have, in good faith and on reasonable grounds, stated that in their opinion the continuation of the pregnancy would likely endanger the life of the pregnant woman, or seriously and substantially endanger her health. Grounds for such opinion would not include (a) the effective stress or anxiety which may accompany an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy and (b) social economic considerations. I will support the motion as amended in this matter, and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in a free vote on the question.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
How can we move into this debate on the question of legal abortions in Canada, without first, and absolutely first, considering the rights of the unborn? I continue to be astounded by the fact that in spite of well-known advances in medical technology and observations of the foetus in early stages, the rights of women were the only rights considered by the judges in the decision last January 28. It is puzzling, to say the least, why the majority of Supreme Court judges believed they should not have to consider the question of the rights of the unborn in the Morgentaler case. If there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to life, then the Supreme Court will have countenanced the death of countless unborn children because it struck down the only law providing any protection of that right. It would clearly have been preferable for the court to address the constitutional right of the unborn, possibly hearing both cases and then rendering a simultaneous judgment.
By the way, one might also ask why men have been legally, psychologically and medically bypassed at a time when they are changing roles and becoming increasingly involved in raising their children. Yet they are systematically denied the right to be involved in life or death decisions affecting their unborn children.
Somewhere in this debate we must ask this question, and indeed we will end this debate by answering it. At what stage of embryonic or foetal development does a child become sufficiently like the rest of us to earn the right to life even if the mother wishes otherwise? Such discussion is rendered difficult by the fact that there is no qualitative difference between someone who is conceived a week ago and someone who was conceived 70 or 80 years ago. To distinguish, you must have to invent some arbitrary line based not on morals or principle but on size or appearance. No matter where you draw your imaginary line, the decision nonetheless affects a distinct and defenceless human life.
The question that simply has to be answered is: When does life begin? Madam Justice Bertha Wilson noted in her decision that the state's interest in the unborn child could not in any circumstances be paramount in the early stages of pregnancy, and that a differential abortion policy with a time limit in the second trimester is in operation in a number of countries, and the examples given were the Soviet Union, China, and some Eastern European countries.
Certainly I cannot accept that line of reasoning. Medical advances and common sense make it absolutely clear that the foetus in the second trimester is the very same human being that it is in the first trimester. We must refrain from supporting measures which fail to give the unborn full legal protection from the moment of conception. The fundamental right to life must always be in place and only put under consideration when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
The eventual law we are seeking will have to deal with possible conflicts of rights of mother and child, for once we recognize the unborn as children or human beings or people then we are back to the Charter, and under the Charter lives of people or persons are protected. Surely if there is a conflict between the rights of mother and child, the right to life is primary.
There can be no quick fix of this complex issue, but the country's whole future is at stake and time is of the essence. Since Section 251 of the Criminal Code was struck down, the Ontario Government has taken the most sweeping and liberal approach possible. Almost immediately the Ontario Minister of Health, Elinor Caplan, announced that therapeutic abortion committees would be abolished and that the provincial health plan would fund abortions whether they were conducted in hospitals or doctors' offices or in clinics such as the Toronto facility operated by Doctor Morgentaler. We are now in a state of complete abortion on demand at any stage and this is not only disturbing, it is frightening and totally unacceptable.
I realize there is no doubt that many women consider abortions because of social as well as economic pressures. No one can ignore the terrible agonizing effect on the women who find themselves carrying an unwanted child. Many of these women are abandoned by their families and sometimes by the father of the child. I am aware of the problems that would result if an abortion were denied to these women, and much work needs to be done by society to assist in this area. By that I mean assisting in sex education, planned parenthood, as well as finding homes for unwanted children.
However, the results of abortion and the agonizing effect on so many women, both physically and mentally, are equally important and as common. I am in no position to criticize the medical profession, but I have often wondered about doctors and surgeons taking so much time with a patient who is about to undergo any kind of treatment or surgery other than therapeutic abortions. They will explain with pictures and sketches and drawings exactly what the patient will be subjected to during that treatment or surgery. Every detail of the operation is explained and even what are expected to be the feelings experienced during the period of recovery.
Yet I am told over and over again that none of this is explained to women who enter an abortion clinic. Afterwards, the stark reality of what really took place begins to come about. So many people experience guilt and depression beyond their ability to cope partly because the unborn child was denied humanity, or that he or she was denied a grave or a grave marker, and the grieving process is left unfinished. Worse still is finding out later what the doctor or the abortionist really physically did to the child.

July 26, 1988

I will not go into it further, but it is a fact that much or more social work to assist in repairing the mental anguish after an abortion will be needed if abortions continue unchecked. The amount of assistance required to control and assist with unwanted pregnancies in ways other than abortion or killing an unwanted child needs to be found.
We as legislators have a duty and responsibility, and it would be all too convenient for us to avoid this controversial issue by insisting our hands are tied by the Supreme Court. That is not true. On reading the judgments one clearly finds that a fairly restrictive abortion law would be constitutionally acceptable. Parliament can indeed adopt another system to assure that the life or health of the pregnant woman is endangered before an abortion is permissible. That system, according to the judgments, could include a requirement that the danger be verified by a reliable and medically sound opinion of a person or persons other than the pregnant woman's own physician. A majority of the judges would uphold a criminal law that restricts access to abortion from conception to situations where there is an independently verifiable danger to the pregnant woman's life or health.
There are, therefore, a number of legal options available to Parliament to protect the rights of the unborn, and in the wake of the Morgentaler decision, even without resorting to the power to override certain sections of the Charter granted by Section 33. It is my opinion, indeed the opinion of most people in my riding of Kent, that we must consider these options and replace the law quickly and decisively, considering the right to life of the unborn child.
Abortions in Canada must be controlled. Any caring society must find ways to give both mother and child the right to life and the freedom to live well.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this very important debate. It is an opportunity to explain to my constituents of Broadview-Greenwood and to all who are taking part in the debate nation-wide where I stand on this issue.
I must begin by saying that I find that the labels pro-life and pro-choice both present difficulties. In my philosophic approach, I am very much shaped by the fact that I am a Christian believer in a religion which teaches me a sense of reverence for life and a belief in the purpose of creation. However, I have been a woman involved in the women's movement for so many years that I have a very strong sense of the desperation of women with unwanted pregnancies and of the need to have legal access to abortions.
I certainly respect the ideals of those in the pro-life movement. I certainly respect their vision as well. In a good society, there would not be recourse to abortion. In a better society
Abortion
than the one in which we live today, there would be no unwanted pregnancies. I think there are many practical ways we could work to achieve that.
When our friends in the pro-life movement say that they want a law which respects human life from the moment of conception until death, I have to respond as a practical legislator by saying that it cannot be done. Such a law, if passed by Parliament, would simply not be respected in practice. Many illegal abortions would occur. There would be test cases and we would have another Morgen taler-type clinic. A case would go to court and I think a jury would, as in the past, decide that medical necessity prevails and we would see that law thrown out as unconstitutional.
Very severe laws mean that women will seek illegal abortions. There will be botched abortions and people will go back to the back street butchers. We know that that results in infertility and suicides in some cases. We do not want to go back to those days.
As legislators, we can promote the choice for women to carry their children to term. We can do this in practical ways. We can ensure that there is adequate child care and that there is parental leave which will make it possible for parents to welcome a new addition to the family. We can see that there will be support for single parents to raise children in difficult circumstances. We can see that there is practical support through family allowance and child tax credits as well as better provisions for parental leave. We need better contraceptives and adequate sex education.
I think that men can play a much more important role by acting responsibly and by thinking about the consequences of their own sexuality. I am rather disturbed when I hear that men want to intervene through court injunctions and the heavy hand of authority. Men have it within their power to teach young men that there are consequences of a sexual act and that if they do not want to be responsible for abortions being performed, they should not be responsible for unwanted pregnancies.
I would hope that those who want to see abortion eliminated from society, and I share that goal, would be much more active in dealing with the question of unwanted pregnancies and would take a much more responsible approach to sexuality. I think there is much we can do as legislators, but I do not think we have the option of simply passing some kind of idealistic law that would be flouted and would be ruled
The Government's motion suggests that there are two different stages in a pregnancy and that they ought to be treated differently. People in the pro-life movement resent this because they argue, quite correctly, I think, that human life exists from the moment of conception. What else is it but a human life? They are quite right. However, practically, the

July 26, 1988
Abortion
decision for a late abortion is a greater tragedy. It is much riskier medically and much more stressful psychologically.
All of us recoil in a very common sense way from the idea of an abortion of a viable foetus, an eight-and-a-half-month old foetus to take a fairly extreme case. It is a different thing, and it seems to me to be very reasonable to take a different approach to abortions at a late stage. This approach of the Government, given the difficulties of the situation, is not an unreasonable compromise.
However, it is important that the decision to have recourse to an abortion for the purposes of health be that of a woman. In the case of a later pregnancy, the idea of having a second medical opinion is reasonable. There may be other ways of recognizing the differences as well. I do share the pro-choice principle that we cannot shut off access and that it is the woman whose life and health is at stake, and therefore, it must be the woman who makes that decision. Where I part company with some of my colleagues in my own Party and with other people who support the pro-choice position is that I do not share that position for all kinds of abortions.
My own Party is referred to in very blanket terms as the pro-choice Party, as if we all had the same point of view. That is not true. There is a majority position and a minority position, as there is in every Party. As well, we have to look at the context in which those debates took place. They took place in the context of the women's movement, with women claiming control and demanding the right to be able to make decisions without being thrown into desperate circumstances.
We now live in a different world. There is reproductive technology which permits other kinds of choices. I think it is morally wrong for abortion to be used for purposes of sex selection. It is wrong to decide that a male or a female child will be wanted and that the sex that is not wanted will be aborted. That is morally wrong, and I think we could have laws that would provide that women would have the right to abortions only in the cases of their own health but not in the cases of selecting the sex of the children.
We are now getting into a science fiction, futuristic scene. There is the possibility that women could try out pregnancies, and if they did not get foetuses with the right qualities, say a foetus that was not athletic enough or one that did not have the right physical or mental characteristics, they could abort them. This possibility now exists. Playing God in that way is inappropriate for human beings, and I do not think abortions for those reasons should be permitted. Those reasons are quite different from the reasons of the health or the life of the mother.
As well, the use of a foetus for medical or experimental purposes is morally wrong. A pregnancy for those purposes with an aborted foetus to be used for medical or experimental purposes seems to me to be wrong in principle. We could have a law that deals with that issue.
I note, however, that the motion before us put by the Government does not specify anything of this kind. I suspect we would find a very large number of Canadians who would share the horror I feel at the prospect of abortions for these
kinds of reasons, reasons which are quite unrelated to the life and the health of women themselves.
A more difficult question arises when we deal with the issue of foetal abnormalities. This is a grey area. Some people claim that a woman should have the right to make this decision no matter what. I find it inappropriate that a decision be made that a child should not live, that its life is not worth living. That kind of decision should not be made by the mother, the father or anyone else. We do not allow people to make that kind of decision after the birth of a child. If there is a disability, no one has the right to decide that that life ought not to be continued. If we do not make that kind of decision about children who have been born, it seems to me that that kind of decision should not be made by human beings when it comes to viable foetuses.
We can imagine that the prospect of this kind of traumatic pregnancy might be extremely stressful to the mother. It might have health consequences and there may be reasons for the mother to seek an abortion on those grounds. However, simply to say that the prospective quality of life of a foetus as a human being is not worth living and that therefore that person will not have the opportunity to live on the basis of our decision about that value, is an inappropriate decision for human beings to be making.
I think we do need a law on abortion. I would like to see it as an Act of Parliament rather than in the Criminal Code. 1 think that such penalties have been tried too much in the past and have not been very effective. They have caused a number of horrors. However, there are some issues on which we should be stating our position. We should be supporting practical measures to make unwanted pregnancies an infrequent or non existent fact of life. We should be working on all the practical issues I suggested earlier from contraceptives to education, financial support for the family, parental leave, and child care. The Government has been negligent in all of those respects.
We must recognize that freedom of choice is often only rhetoric which does not mean very much. The reality is that very often a woman is pressured into an abortion by financial stress and also a lot of psychological stress from her partner. Sociologically we know that one of the major reasons for abortion is this pressure from the male partner, be it husband or boyfriend, of the pregnant woman.
There are instances in which we need further study such as the case of foetal abnormality. I support the proposal put forward by my Party that there be a Royal commission on reproductive technology. That would be very helpful. However, we do not need a Royal commission on issues such as the use of foetal tissue and the use of abortion for sex selection or the selection of other characteristics. Those issues are right or they are wrong and we have positions as moral persons on those issues. Some of them are perfectly clear and we can proceed on them without further study. However, I think that we do need further study on some issues and we should be prepared to amend our laws as we attain the results of those studies.
July 26, 1988

Finally, it is extremely difficult to respond to a specific motion, some parts of which I agree with and some parts of which I do not agree with. My own Party is putting forward an amendment which reflects the majority view of the caucus. I do not share it entirely although I share parts of that approach. I believe that many of us find that when we work out our philosophy it does not entirely fit the mold of any particular organization.
In conclusion, I hope that we will have a good discussion throughout the couple of days during which we will be considering this issue. I hope there will be good amendments moved. I hope we can proceed in an orderly fashion to deal with the issue. We will never reach a solution which will have 100 per cent or even an enormous amount of consensus. We are going to be divided, but we must come up with a solution which will be acceptable to a very broad range of Canadians. We will have to deal with those differences in a constructive way. I hope that we will proceed to deal with the root cause of a recourse to abortion, that is, the unwanted pregnancy. I hope we will be much more vigorous in dealing with those in a constructive way.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I approach this subject with a great deal of difficulty. I have a major concern with the situation in which we now find ourselves. We have before us a government motion which clearly calls for protection during the gestation period. If we as pro-life supporters were to say that we cannot live with that condition and were to vote against the motion of the Government, we would in turn find ourselves faced directly with abortion on demand. As a result of the Supreme Court decision, we have in Canada today a rapid growth industry known as free-standing abortion clinics under another name.
I would like to talk about Peterborough for a moment. Since the Supreme Court decision was announced the provincial Government has intentionally moved to establish clinics in Ontario which will operate as extensions of hospitals and give consultation to expectant mothers and then offer the service of abortion. This is being done in a great number of communities against the will, in my perception, of the majority of those communities.
In the City of Peterborough the provincial Government moved in against large demonstrations, candle-light vigils, and marches on the hospitals and announced its intention, through the provincial Minister of Health, to open a free-standing clinic as an extension of the Civic Hospital and fund that clinic to the extent of $800,000. This was at a time when it announced to the other Peterborough hospital, St. Joseph's Hospital, which is a Catholic hospital that will not perform abortions, that it did not have the money to assist it in a $400,000 over expenditure.
It could find some $800,000 to open this clinic to offer a service of consultation to expectant mothers when the medical profession in the City of Peterborough is currently offering those services. This new free-standing clinic was going to do that at a cost of $800,000 for the Civic Hospital when the provincial government could not find $400,000 to cover the
Abortion
deficit of St. Joseph's Hospital, forcing it to close beds, reduce services, and reduce operating procedures.
If that is not bad enough, add to it that as a result of the desire to find doctors in Peterborough who will perform abortions, the provincial Government has allocated funds to this free-standing clinic to train doctors to perform abortions. In the City of Peterborough there is only one medical doctor who will perform all abortions. In addition to that there is one doctor who will perform abortions for his patients only.
Part of the reason I am having so much difficulty with the abortion issue is that a lot of my personal friends, male and female, are medical doctors. My wife is a registered nurse. The situation within the medical profession has become so bad that a great number of doctors have decided that they can no longer recommend to boards that abortions should occur. Part of the reason for that is that they see young people who have had not only one abortion but two and in some cases, although not a large number, three abortions as a means of birth control.
There are two things which we must consider.
One is whether society is ready today to accept the fact that abortion is the norm and there should be free-standing clinics and abortion on demand. Some people tell me that they know I have fought for the return of capital punishment, and have shown by my interest in the return of capital punishment a lack of respect as it pertains to human life through the execution of the convict.
I thought about that for a long time. I answer my constituents by saying that when I deal with a convicted murderer I deal with someone who has been convicted as guilty and to take that life as a penalty that fits the crime is a reasonable form of justice available to Parliament to consider in the form of legislation. I ask the abolitionists who, in a number of cases, happen to support abortion, why they have so much respect for the proven guilty, like the Clifford Olsons, and so little respect for the life of the unborn child. That sort of analogy shows the difficulty facing Members of Parliament with this very controversial issue.
I find it difficult to deal with the Criminal Code and its sections that bring with them the penalties of law when we have a Constitution in Canada that is mute on the protection of the unborn child. That is why in the past year I have appreciated the opportunity to support Private Members' Bills that have called upon the Government of Canada to take to a First Ministers' Conference, as a priority, changes to the Constitution Act, 1982, which would recognize the foetus as a human being with some rights. I do not believe one can take the foetus through the gestational period and come to the conclusion that at 12 o'clock noon on the fourth week, it suddenly becomes a person. I think it comes to the point where each Member of Parliament will have to decide whether rights should be extended to the foetus and who among us has the right to determine on what hour, on what day, in what week, or in what month those rights take place.

Abortion
I look to church leaders for their views on a number of these issues. Although 1 did not have the support of the Catholic bishops on my stand for capital punishment, I think I will have their support on my position in the protection of the foetus and the extension of rights to the unborn. Of all the correspondence I have received, this one letter that I received from Archbishop James M. Hayes, a member of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, sums up my position on this issue of abortion. He says:
The Government has introduced a Motion that proposes the totally unacceptable gestational approach for a new Canadian abortion law.
The position of the Catholic Church is that human life begins at conception and must be valued, respected and safeguarded from the beginning. The gestational approach is scientifically and ethically indefensible because it draws an arbitrary dividing line between life which is worthy of protection and life which is not.
The government's Motion abandons a primary function of the law: The protection of human life. Furthermore, it does not achieve the socially imperative balance between the rights and interests of women and the equally important rights and interests of unborn children.
We count on the good will of everyone who values human life to work and pray for legislation which recognizes, values, respects and protects human life from conception to natural death.
To this end, a new abortion law must be developed in the context of other laws and social policies which together will make this a society ever more hospitable to all human life at all stages of development.
Let us carry that to the next stage in dealing with the motion before the House. I was pleased to be able to table an amendment to the government motion that I believe would satisfy the Catholic bishops who have said that they are prepared, when it would cost the life of the mother, to bring the pregnancy to fruition. They would consider in the protection of the life of the mother the loss of the life of the infant.
I was disturbed that the justice critic for the Official Opposition, the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), said that one of the most difficult problems arising from Section 251 of the Criminal Code is the definition of the life and health of the mother. If I am quoting him correctly, I believe he said that over his years it has been the number one problem in the broad definition of the term "health of the mother". Yet that same justice critic for the Official Opposition said he would not put in an amendment, but would wait and see.
He does not like our motion and other Members opposite have said that they do not like our motion. Perhaps they are simply not used to a free vote in the House of Commons. Anyone who is at all interested in the protection of the unborn or the rights of the unborn would give serious consideration to amending a motion to allow it to answer their concerns.
According to my amendment, we would delete all the words after the words "to protect the unborn" in the main motion and substitute therefor: "Such legislation should prohibit the
July 26, 1988
performance of an abortion except when two independent qualified medical practitioners have, in good faith and on reasonable grounds, stated that in their opinion the continuation of the pregnancy would or would be likely to endanger the life of the pregnant woman".
That is the amendment. I believe that in Peterborough we would have more success in finding doctors who would perform abortions if the cause of the abortion was that. What the doctors object to is the rubber stamping of abortion on demand through free-standing clinics like Dr. Morgentaler's.
The motion in the House would allow people like Morgen-taler and company to sign an abortion. That would make it legal if we approved the Government motion without an amendment requiring that the life of the mother be the prime requisite for the granting of an abortion.
1 would like to close with two thoughts. First I will recap my opening remarks. If we do not win a pro-life amendment to this motion, if this House cannot carry the consent and wish to protect the unborn child, then there are only two other alternatives. The first is to vote for the government motion which recognizes a gestational period but removes abortion on demand and, second, to vote against the government motion and go with the status quo today, thanks to the Supreme Court of Canada, which specifically says we can continue on the way we are, and the way we are today is abortion on demand.
I am still in the position where I am considering. I am prolife. I want a pro-life amendment as much as I want anything, and I want to be able to offer an abortion to my constituents who require an abortion if it threatens the life of the expectant mother. However, I would much prefer the government motion to what we will have if we do not get the government motion through. We would then have abortion on demand.
I think it is best stated in the words I wrote down this afternoon. I do not want to be too brutal. I do not like to preach "holier than thou" types of sermons. I was raised in a parsonage and I heard a lot of sermons in my day. But I would like to give the House this thought. First, by allowing abortions, we are deliberately allowing a destructive, brutal and violent act to be undertaken with state approval. Second, we live in a society that will not allow discrimination on the grounds of sex or colour. Yet we are prepared to consider allowing abortions on the grounds of foetal abnormality. I feel quite strongly about this. If this occurs, as sure as night follows day it will be followed by infanticide, the liquidation of the handicapped and the euthanasia of the aged.
July 26, 1988

I think the time has come when Members of Parliament will have to stand up and be counted. Are we prepared to give recognition to the foetus? Are we prepared to give protection to the life of the foetus? Are we prepared to accept what Christian-Judaeo teachings tell us that a person is a person from the time of conception until death? Or are we moving our society closer and closer to the kinds of dilemma that will follow if we fail to give protection to the foetus at this most important point in this Parliament's history.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I rise feeling a certain difficulty this evening about speaking to the resolution that the Government tabled today with the intention not of legislating on abortion but rather of finding out where MPs stand on termination of pregnancy. Let me explain: the debate we have had this evening has not been a debate on a bill, it has been a poll by the government to find out what all our positions are.
Why? I think that if the Government had done the responsible thing, it would have tabled a bill and not a resolution which is neither fish nor flesh, which wants to be seen as the via media and doesn't satisfy anybody, neither the pro-life groups nor the pro-choice groups.
I also think it is hypocritical of the Government to hide behind a mediocre resolution instead of presenting us with a Bill.
The motion we are discussing this evening flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling, because the approach the ruling took gave women a voice. And the motion we are faced with this evening is quite a different story. When I listen to the majority of the speeches that have been made in the House this evening, it seems to me that a majority of MPs want to take away women's voice. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what percentage of the Hon. Members actually read the Supreme Court ruling before giving their views. I don't think I would be wrong if I asserted that at least 90 per cent of my fellow-Members have not read the ruling, because, (if they had), there would have been a number of speeches this evening that would surely not have taken the tack they did. Some even referred to the rights guaranteed by the Charter, and if you read the ruling, you will find it is based on those very rights.
They confront us with a resolution, as I said just now, that flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling, because in the ruling it says that in the early stages of pregnancy the decision is entirely up to the woman. And here we have a motion that says she has to share that decision with her doctor, and in the second paragraph that she has to share it with two doctors. I won't read the motion, Mr. Speaker, because a number of my colleagues have already done so. But I am taken aback to see the Conservative Government, which claims to be a government that extends and promises liberty and equality to women, blundering so badly when it comes to the right of women to terminate a pregnancy, which is a fundamental right, as the Supreme Court ruling spelled out. But is is a right that seems to terrify a number of lobby groups, and the Conservative government too. Otherwise it would have tabled a Bill.
Abortion
As I listened to certain MPs this evening, I thought how interesting it would have been to have their wives speaking in their place this evening. I am sure the approach taken would have been a very different one, because I know very few women who-even if a majority of women tell you that life begins at the moment of conception, they'll also say that the decision rests with the woman. I know very few women, Mr. Speaker, who think abortion is a good thing. To be in favour of the freedom to choose is not the same thing as being in favour of abortion. You have only to recall all the difficulties and physical pain women used to undergo to obtain an abortion, simply to obtain a therapeutic abortion.
I can look back to around 1966, when the first familyplanning clinic was opened in Montreal, when it was still illegal to talk about contraception. At that time I was the nurse in charge of an obstetrics and gynecology ward, and on Monday we would be told, "There've been 15 admissions for miscarriages-" But, abortion being illegal, all those cases of miscarriage would turn out to be cases of abortion. And when you examined the patients you found that they had used lye, Javex, knitting needles. We were told crazy stories such as: I was painting and the smell of paint caused my miscarriage, or I fell and at that very moment, I had contractions and aborted.
But if you took a closer look at it, you could see that these women had had a voluntary abortion. At that time, they had to be reported. I remember, after taking a nurse training course in the suburbs, I came to Montreal for my specialization, 1 had never been faced with a woman who was arrested because she had had an abortion. Then, as head of my department, I see two policemen coming. They tell me: You have a patient under the name of Mrs. X. Then I answered to them: Yes, she is in bed 15-3. Then I ask: Did anything happen in her family so that you come and visit her? They answer: No, we have had a report that that woman has had an abortion and she must be arrested. Can you imagine my surprise? That did not take place 50 years ago, Mr. Speaker, but in the years 1967-68 in Montreal.
Thus, I decided to have a meeting with the staff and nurses and to tell them that before they report women and send them to jail, they would better make their comments and reports to the department head so that it doesn't happen again.
But some of these women who had had an abortion on the kitchen table woke up later on and thought they had aborted; they were haemorrhaging, most of them did not abort but they could not have sex for the following months and years.
Later on, the rate of miscarriages was very high. If you look at it, since the passage of the therapeutic abortion legislation or even in the past few years, you will see that the percentage of miscarriages in Canadian hospitals was very low because there have been abortions. But at that time the number of miscarriages was very high because everybody was having so-called spontaneous miscarriages and everybody knew that they were voluntary abortions.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
In 1969, we passed the therapeutic abortion legislation. I would like to deal with it, Mr. Speaker, because I sat on the first committees on therapeutic abortion. I sat on and helped set up abortion committees from Newfoundland to Victoria. All the committee members were men. We had to fight for one or two years before they agreed to have women sitting on those committees. Each woman, each case that was studied, because we had no right to ask the patient. A case was presented and defended and each woman about to have a therapeutic abortion had to talk with a psychiatrist to ascertain whether she was not mentally disturbed. Or else it was said that she was going through a breakdown or that she would be deeply disturbed, but there was always some reference to a psychological disorder and that was the only way to get a therapeutic abortion.
Of course, women were 12 weeks pregnant when they arrived because they were coming from regions where nobody knew that they were entitled to a therapeutic abortion.
Subsequently, I was a member of the Badgley Commission which considered the implementation of the abortion legislation. We travelled throughout Canada and realized that women were going to hospital to undergo a therapeutic abortions thinking that it was still forbidden. But again, according to the provinces, it was a federal legislation that some of the provinces refused to enforce. There were also some hospital administrators who refused to provide for therapeutic abortions. Thus, according to the region where you lived, according to your financial means, you could or could not have a therapeutic abortion.
I remember being told by some provincial officials: There is no abortion here, we do not need it. Women had to go to the neighbouring province. They were going in particular to the Town of Lethbridge where abortions were provided for the whole Province of Saskatchewan where therapeutic abortions were not available. They had to go to the Atlantic provinces where the federal legislation is not implemented at the present time, and Montreal hospitals are overflowing with women coming from the Atlantic provinces because they cannot have access to therapeutic abortions in the hospitals of those provinces. Montreal hospitals were packed and officials used to say, what are we going to do with those patients? And those patients went to clinics.
The Badgley report on the implementation of the Abortion Act made some major recommendations but said, among other things, that if we were to stop unwanted pregnancies, what was needed were clinics providing for sexual education and contraception services throughout Canada.
But when I sat on the committee on child care services in 1986, we travelled throughout Canada and I ventured to ask questions about pregnancies among teenagers, since we were dealing with child care, and I was told that no sexual education course was given in several regions because it was not permissive to even say the word "sex", and that contraception means were even less offered. With the result that in one of the Atlantic provinces, in 1985, there were more childbirths among single mothers than among married women. That was not 20 years ago, but two or three years ago!
At present, it seems that women are being denied the right to interrupt their pregnancy but on the other hand, we do not provide support services either to those who have children or to those who want to go on with their pregnancy. We have at present in Canada no service that is designed for women willing to go on with their pregnancy. We have no drug service, they are not given any particular assistance, any welfare, they have no housing. If they are young, there is no way they can go on with their studies and they have to turn to food banks. They are undernourished and often give birth to sick babies.
The Conservative Government has introduced a motion instead of a Bill. They say that they are for the family, that they want to do more for children. But if you look at what the Conservative Government has accomplished since 1984 for the family and children, we find, first, the Badgley report on child abuse tabled in 1984. Only one committee has been created since and no recommendation has been implemented.
The birth control department was closed down in 1985. There have been dramatic cut-backs in the budget of Planned Parenthood. The tax reform has increased taxes for Canadian families. Naturally, there is no sex education program and obviously no contraception program because this is permissive!
Very little if anything at all has been done for battered women. There are not enough day care centres. One out of five children in Canada is poor and 57 per cent of children between the ages of six and 14 are left alone after school.
Then, the women are told to shut up and that it is not up to them to determine whether they can continue their pregnancy and take care of their children afterwards. And all this to protect the unborn child!
Mr. Speaker, I agree that we shall have to decide up to which stage of a pregnancy abortion can be practised.
Earlier, I heard an Hon. Member say that he would accept abortions when the life of the mother is threatened.
I simply want to point out that the mental balance and the very life of many mothers in Canada are threatened every day because they live in poverty, because they do not have access to daycare, because they are battered, because they are sexually abused. We talk about danger. It is always more dramatic to speak about a threat to the life of the mother. But what are we doing for women in their everyday life? What are we doing to help them? I must admit that it is very little.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, no one is for abortion and being pro-choice is not necessarily the same as being for abortion. Being pro-choice means to respect the choice and to provide support for every woman who decides to continue her pregnancy and to help those who decide to have their pregnancies terminated. People will say: those women could continue their pregnancy and give up the child for adoption, because there are not enough children for those who want to adopt. However, we should look at the figures. Most teenage mothers do not give up their child for adoption. They keep their child, maybe for three years and then they decide to put up the child up for adoption. The child will remember that.
July 26, 1988

There is no family policy in Canada, and this causes a lot of hardship. To support free choice, we must have services. We need clinics providing termination of pregnancies and services to help women who want to continue their pregnancy, as well as education services and follow-ups. I quite agree with several Members who said: there are clinics where women have abortions, after which they go home and we do not know what happens to them afterwards. There should be follow-ups to provide support services to all the women who get an abortions. First, to avoid re-occurrences, and second, to check on their psychological state. There is nothing like that at this time.
Teenage pregnancies have reached epidemic proportions in Canada. As I recall, teenagers account for 34 out of every 1,000 pregnancies in Alberta. Naturally, there is no sex or contraception education program.
I have been listening to my colleagues since 3 p.m. this afternoon, and I have found that Members generally confuse two different concepts, the right of the mother and the right of the unborn child. I believe that we should have a Bill which takes both concepts into account. It is not the case now. We have a motion which does not solve anything.
It is rather strange to hear Members tell us that women do not have the right to make the decision when we are given the responsibility to raise our children. Women are given custody of the children in case of separation or divorce, but we are denied the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or not. We are given responsibilities, but denied the right of decision.
From what we hear, women are no longer having children. Many will say that it is because of abortion. Howevere, Mr. Speaker, it is not because of abortion, but because of our economic system and the economic position of women. I believe that this is the major responsibility.
We also have to remember the ruling of the Supreme Court which speaks about human dignity for women. As I said earlier, I know that the majority of my colleagues have not read the ruling of the Supreme Court, and I shall therefore conclude my speech by reading a few passages from that ruling. When the court speaks about the human dignity on which the Charter is based, it is referring to the right to make fundamental personal decisions without interference from the state. This is a crucial component of the right to freedom. Mr. Speaker, in a free and democratic society, the right to freedom does not require the state to approve the personal decisions of its citizens. However, it requires the state to respect these decisions.
In addition, the right to freedom provided in section 7 guarantees for each individual some personal autonomy about the major decisions affecting his private life.
Abortion
More recently, and this is still in the ruling of the Supreme Court which I would have liked my male colleagues to read, the fight for recognition of women's rights has been a fight against discrimination so that women would find a place in a man's world, to develop a package of legislative reforms to put women on an equal footing with men. We are not struggling here to define the rights of women in relation to their particular position in the social structure or in relation to the biological difference between the sexes. The sole form taken by the needs and aspirations of women today is that of guaranteed rights. The right to reproduce or not to reproduce is one of those rights, and it is rightly considered an integral part of the contemporary fight by women to affirm their dignity and value as human beings.
I would also like to summarize briefly what the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Beetz point out, that is, that the existing legislative structure for obtaining an abortion plainly "subjects women to considerable emotional stress and unnecessary physical risk." And then they add that in their view the existing legislative structure "is more deeply flawed" than that. Essentially what it does is assert "that the woman's capacity to reproduce is to be subject not to her own control but to that of the state." She is not to be allowed to choose to exercise that capacity or not. In my opinion, this not only violates her right to liberty, in the sense of her right, her personal autonomy in decision-making, it is also "a direct interference with her physical person".
How can a woman in that situation have the slightest feeling of security about her person? And the justices conclude by saying that they consider that Section 251 of the Criminal Code deprives the pregnant woman both of her right to security of the person and of her right to liberty.
Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to see my colleagues in the House of Commons approach this motion bearing in mind what the Supreme Court ruling says. I think women must make themselves respected. It's very nice to want to respect the unborn child, but we live a daily reality where women are always there, and obviously they tend to get forgotten. They are inconvenient, because they speak out and demand things.
So I just want to say that I will vote against the motion because it does not respect the liberty or the human dignity of women, and also I hope that one day the Government will assume its responsibilities and table a Bill in which there will be a balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child, and in which there will be provision for services such as education, contraception, and support for the mothers who want to continue their pregnancies as well as for those who want to interrupt them, because I must say that a motion like this one is in my view an abdication on the Government's part and a step backward.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
So I hope we will soon have a Bill, and above all that this motion will not be used to gain Brownie points during the upcoming election campaign, because I think the Government has no call to be proud of what it has tabled here today.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to participate in tonight's important debate. For me the issue goes back to 1983 when I was first nominated. In the 18 months that I spent campaigning between that time and the election I was taken aback, or perhaps a little off guard, at the number of times I was confronted by future constituents on the abortion issue. Economic matters would be brought up and someone would mention the abortion issue and ask where I stood on it. It was something that took me quite by surprise. I felt that the citizens whom I was purporting to represent had a right to know where I stood on the issue.
After careful study and much reflection I decided that, should I be elected to Parliament, I would support the pro-life position on abortion whenever I had the opportunity. I feel that I was elected to serve the constituents of Dauphin-Swan River. Occasionally votes come up on moral issues such as the current abortion debate. In such issues I feel that I must vote as my conscience directs. Therefore, on Thursday my vote will reflect my pro-life position on the abortion matter.
I recognize quite clearly that many of my constituents and many other Canadians disagree with me, but I believe that a moral and very emotional issue such as abortion cannot be voted upon based on public opinion polls. We must show tolerance and respect for minorities and, at the same time, we must also protect those unable to do so for themselves, such as our unborn. I intend to vote on Thursday for the amendment which best considers the rights of our unborn, from the time of conception to birth.
On June 2, 1987, 1 joined with 61 other MPs in voting in favour of the motion brought forward by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) which attempted to entrench the rights of the unborn in our Constitution. Then, as we all know, in January of 1988-in fact, the very reason that we are debating the issue tonight-the Supreme Court ruled that Section 251 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional. At that time it was said that the ruling by the Supreme Court on Section 251 was a blow to the pro-life movement. I disagree. In fact, I was glad that Section 251 was ruled unconstitutional. I was also ashamed, quite frankly, that under Section 251 over 60,000 Canadian unborn children were aborted every year, almost 200 a day. Since 1969, when Section 251 became the law of our land, over one million Canadian unborn children have been aborted. I was ashamed to say that our country would condone such a slaughter of our unborn.
We now have the opportunity to recognize the rights of the unborn. That point was mentioned in the ruling brought down
by the Supreme Court, that it was within the power of Parliament to recognize the rights of our unborn.
Today, we have begun debate on what we as Parliamentarians feel should be the basis of legislation on abortion. Several options are available to us. The main motion, as presented, will attract many amendments that will reflect many differing opinions of how Parliament should deal with the issue.
I reject the so-called free choice option, that is, that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor. I reject it because it ignores a third party-a very important third party-namely the unborn child, whose very life is at stake.
At the same time, some would have us accept a compromise, that is that abortion is okay after the first trimester or perhaps that it is okay until the 24th week, which is currently in place in other countries; that somehow the foetus becomes worth while at some arbitrary point in development. I will not now, nor will I ever, accept such a compromise.
Who on this earth has a right to determine at what point in foetal development the unborn becomes too valuable to abort? Not I, not anyone. Genetic science has clearly showed us that life begins at conception. We know at that point that it is clearly defined what the eye colour of the child will be, how tall that child is going to grow up to be, the hair colour, the skin colour, the personality.
The trimester approach to abortion presents our society with many other bio-ethical issues, the first of which is foetal tissue experimentation. If the trimester approach is accepted, do we as a society then condone a scientific experimentation or organ harvesting, for example? Second, the other bio-ethical issue that is brought to mind is euthanasia. The logical extension, in my mind, of a gestational approach to abortion is to say that at a certain age a senior citizen becomes somehow arbitrarily worthless. That is as equally abhorrent to me as the arbitrary assessment of worth of the foetus as it develops. Therefore, in my opinion, the ultimate legislation must consider foetal rights from the time of conception.
To quote Mr. Iain Benson of the Canadian Bar Association, "what is a distinction between the foetus before birth and a child after birth, such that one has the right to life and the other does not?" I say that there is no distinction, and both must have equal rights to life.
Many Canadians claim to be defenders of human rights yet at the same time advocate abortion on demand. In my humble opinion, no person can be taken seriously on matters of human rights if they do not at the same time defend human life at its frailest, at its most defenceless, namely, in the mother's womb.
Those who support abortion on demand are dooming our unborn and taking away their most basic right, the right to life. They are dooming our unborn, whose only crime is being unwanted, who gets in the way and are not strong enough to protect himself or herself.
July 26, 1988

I for one am prepared to do and offer whatever I can to support and protect our unborn from conception onward. The government caucus has said that MPs of our Party are free to vote according to our consciences on this issue on Thursday. I expected nothing less from the Government. It shows it recognizes the sensitivity of the issue. I find it astounding that anyone would criticize a free vote in the House of Commons. What could be more democratic? Every Canadian is represented in this House of Commons, and it is our difficult duty as MPs to decide on how Parliament should proceed on this most difficult and emotional issue.
I look forward to standing on Thursday and voting in favour of amendments that will protect our unborn from the moment of conception until birth.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my intention this evening is to provide what I hope will prove to be a reflective intervention on the resolution before us. The word "reflective" is used on purpose, because for those who have gone beyond the reflective mode to hold without doubt either the pro-life or the pro-choice position, the abortion debate has long since ceased to be a debate in any real sense of the word. Instead of a contest for considered public opinion, it has become a psycho-political case of nerves and a shouting match which excludes the vast majority of people who are so humble as to not be absolutely sure what is right.
Unfortunately, the real debate has been a long time in coming, as both so-called sides of the debate have been so given over to name calling and the impugning of the motives of those with whom they disagree, that many who could have made a useful contribution to the debate over the years have found themselves without a place and unable to stomach the self-righteousness which has abounded around this issue.
The debate tonight has been commendably civilized, and I hope that it continues in this way. I commend everybody who has been involved so far.
When I say that those who take a position have gone beyond what could be called debate, I contend that they are players in a dispute which is a classic example of what is wrong with contemporary moral disagreement.
This sorry state of contemporary moral debate has been well described by Alastair MacIntyre in his book After Virtue. I quote:
Every one of the arguments is logically valid or can be easily expanded so as to be made so; the conclusions do indeed follow from the premises. But the rival premises are such that we possess no rational way of weighing the claims of one as against another. For each premise employs some quite different normative or evaluative concept from the others, so that the claims made upon us are of quite different kinds.
It is precisely because there is in our society no established way of deciding between these claims that moral argument appears to be necessarily interminable. From our rival conclusions we can argue back to our rival premises; but when we do arrive at our premises argument ceases and the invocation of one premise against another becomes a matter of pure assertion and counter-assertion. Hence perhaps the slightly shrill tone of so much moral debate.
What follows is an attempt at a non-shrill contribution.
Abortion
The official policy of the New Democratic Party of Canada, with respect to abortion is that the decision to have an abortion is a private decision to be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor or, in other words, the pro-choice position.
This is not a policy with which I have ever been comfortable for a variety of reasons. Indeed, in the federal elections of 1979, 1980, and 1984,1 made it clear to those who inquired of my views on this issue, both publicly and privately, that I did not support the Party policy in this case, that I did not support abortion on demand, and that I was very concerned about some of the implications of such a policy, both in terms of an increased number of abortions and in terms of the arguments advanced in favour of the pro-choice position in so far as some of the assumptions which underlie these arguments reflect values that, in my view, are questionable and have not been thought through by the pro-choice movement, however well-intentioned they may be and are.
I am a critic of what might be called the cosmology of the pro-choice movement, about which I will have more to say later. Therefore, I will not be supporting the amendment which was moved on behalf of the majority of the NDP caucus today by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar). I appreciate the tolerance which has been extended to me by my Leader and caucus colleagues to put before the House a position different from theirs.
S0)
Life has always been cheap but it has been a feature of capitalism to rationalize and sanctify the devaluation of human life by introducing an economic ethic that reduces persons to things, to commodities exchanged in the marketplace. Thus, if we wish to fight for the sanctity of life we must fight for it on all fronts, and in particular at the source of all current exemplifications, which in my view is the materialistic and technological view of humanity implicit in advanced capitalist societies.
The question for New Democrats is, as I see it, whether on the issue of abortion we have with the best of intentions ended up buying a piece of the very world view we otherwise oppose. Therefore, with fear and trembling, knowing that one's position on abortion has become for many on the left the litmus test of whether one is truly progressive, I will offer arguments against uncritical acceptance of the pro-choice position.
First, I would like to say a word about why I have not been a supporter of the pro-life position or the movement associated with it, for a number of reasons. I do not like their cosmology either. I was reminded of another way in which this is the case when I heard the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock- North Delta (Mr. Friesen) this evening use the language of contract to describe marriage, how liberal and commercial the language of Christian pro-lifers has become, using the language of the market-place and of contract instead of the deeper, biblical concept of covenant to speak about the relationship between men and women. That reflects a deeper malaise that I do not have time to go into tonight.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
I have been critical of the pro-life movement because, in the first place, it was always unrealistic for pro-lifers to expect abortion to be as restricted as they wanted it to be. In light of the Supreme Court's action, I think it is now even more unrealistic to expect severe restrictions on the availability of abortions at all stages, particularly in the earlier stages. Neither if it were achievable would such an almost total ban on abortions be desirable. Abortions would continue. Back alley butchers would be back in business. Poor women would be put in comparably more danger than women who could afford to travel to where abortions could be performed safely.
My personal moral preference is for a world in which no one chooses abortion as a solution to a difficult situation, but that does not blind me to this reality. Morality also demands that, knowing what we know, we make decisions on that basis and not as if we did not know or as if it were not the case.
I have also been critical, among other things, of the extent to which the pro-life movement has been associated in general with a right wing politics whose passion for children seems to end at birth, after which they have to take whatever the free enterprise system dishes out to them and their families according to the law of the market-place. From the safety of their mother's womb that certain pro-life MPs would wish on them, some babies are then to be cast out by these same Members into ramshackle housing and cut-backs in lunch programs in inner city schools. Such ideologically selective compassion is unacceptable to me and is really only antiabortion without being comprehensively pro-life.
This criticism does not apply to the Roman Catholic Church which has on occasion been articulately critical of free enterprise. However, it most certainly applies to some fundamentalist Protestant pro-lifers and to many of my colleagues on the other side of the House whose real God, I would suggest, on occasion is the market-place, or, idol if you prefer.
My problem with Roman Catholic teaching on this issue is in another area and that is with respect to its rigid attitude toward contraception and the fact that it often seems to counsel its members to vote on only one issue, i.e., abortion, when on issues of peace and economic justice, domestically and globally, there is little difference at all between the views of the NDP and the views of the Canadian Catholic Bishops. Are the deaths caused by the lack of global and domestic economic justice that both the bishops and the NDP are calling for relevant to our political choices? I hope not.
The abortion issue is also used by some on occasion just to create anti-NDP feelings for larger political purposes. The recent provincial election in Manitoba is a good example of this. I know many in my area were encouraged to vote Liberal in the mistaken view that this would be an anti-abortion vote. The irony, of course, is that in Liberal Ontario and Liberal Quebec, Doctor Morgentaler operated freely long before the
Supreme Court decision. It was an NDP Government that would not tolerate his illegal activities. New Democrats, many of whom wanted the law changed, at least respected the law and did not try to impose their view by default or neglect.
I have tried to be an honest critic of both sides of this debate and in doing so I think I have been in tune with a lot of Canadians who have felt that neither Morgentaler nor Borowski spoke for them. This has meant that I have received criticism from both sides, but I am quite willing to accept such criticism rather than artificially choosing sides and then plugging my ears to other arguments.
If, as some pro-lifers have said recently, one is not totally with them, then one is against them, then I accept the judgment that I am against them. I take my stand with what I would call the humble majority who, like me, are interested in finding a policy that is an acceptable compromise, who realize that what we are talking about here is part of the tragic imperfectability of the human condition, who do not envision a world without sin as the pro-life people do, or a world without guilt as the pro-choice people do.
This humble majority realizes that a compromise is in order which reflects the reality that abortion will be sought and will be obtained, but wants to maintain a value context in which abortion is still something that people are expected to have good reasons for, even if in practice this will not always be the case.
As I understand the Supreme Court decision, it does speak of the need to balance the rights of the woman with the rights of the unborn child. The implication seems to be that some rule which restricted the time frame within a pregnancy in which abortion would be permissible on request might well stand up in court. Whether such a rule either would or should take the form of a criminal sanction against individual women is debatable. I have never been happy about making criminals of women who, for whatever reason, good or bad, feel they must have an abortion. This, incidentally, is what I understand to be the historical essence of the NDP position.
However, whether it be through the Criminal Code or an abortion Act with sanctions, or preferably in some other way outside the Criminal Code altogether, it is obvious that some regulation or restrictions are in order. I agree with those who argue, both in terms of the Supreme Court judgment or separately from it, that abortion has not and should not be established as an absolute right. For me it is a question of establishing what policy we will have in Canada to address the conflicting claims of both women and the unborn, a policy which needs to be determined in Parliament so that abortion is dealt with the same in all provinces, with all Canadian women treated equally, having equal access to those abortions determined to be legal by Parliament.
July 26, 1988

1 am informed that even Doctor Morgentaler will not perform abortions after 12 to 14 weeks, for whatever reason, which is chronologically well in advance of viability and may be just a range that might be acceptable as the time before which, for now, and I stress for now, it is purely a matter of choice and beyond which good reasons, to be determined in the Bill which should follow the passage of the government motion, but which we will probably never get to as a result of the election, must be had for seeking an abortion.
Beyond this time, and particularly after the time of viability, a time which is earlier due to modern technology, perhaps only something of the magnitude of a genuine threat to the physical life of the mother, or a gross deformity of the foetus detectable only at a later stage, should be grounds for an abortion. It is at the point of viability that I am convinced that law should come into play. Before the earlier deadline before which choice and viability will be the rule, there may well be a grey area where good reasons will have to be given but only regulation will be necessary. This three-stage policy would not satisfy those who feel that life at conception is equal in value to life at birth, at 20 weeks or at 12 weeks, but it may be near the compromise that in my judgment will be necessary as well as advisable.
1 am not sure whether the government motion calls for a two-stage or for a three-stage policy. This is part of the problem. It is unclear in this respect and it is unclear as to what the words "further conditions" might entail.
All that I have said so far is said in view of what I regard to be the political and judicial reality of Canadian society in 1988 and of what is possible in a democratic society that has deep divisions within it about the value and status of unborn life, in which choice when it comes to abortion has become a symbol for many women and indeed for many men of real freedom for women to shape their own lives, when for others, getting tough on abortion is seen as a symbol of taking a final stand against the creeping amorality of the age.
This political reality is a fact of life, not just for Canadian politicians but for all Canadians. In my judgment, pro-lifers have to accept this reality without accepting various pro-choice arguments which I myself question. One such argument is, for instance, that society does not have a right to impose its morality on individual decisions. Obviously society does this all the time. It is how we handle an issue over which there is fundamental disagreement that is the question.
In my view, morality is what politics is all about. It is not just about abortion or about issues like capital punishment. It is also about our economy and how we organize our economy. I reject the view that morality is somehow only a private or individual matter restricted to a small range of issues.
I also reject the pro-choice argument that abortion is only a health issue. This unacceptably reduces what is involved in the decision to have an abortion and in my view is a contradiction of the argument also made by the pro-choice advocates that women should be able to choose abortion for whatever reason they personally choose it for, unless of course the concept of health is used so broadly as to make no distinction between
Abortion
needs and wants, a distinction which is too often blurred in our consumer society. Therefore, I am not morally indifferent to all the abortions that will be chosen by women if the Supreme Court decision leads to abortion on demand up to a prescribed number of weeks.
Many of the abortions that will follow from this decision and the federal law which follows from it will be abortions that in my view are unjustified, wrong, and tragic. However, I cannot bring myself to single out pregnant women who feel that they absolutely must have abortions as objects of moral outrage or punishment. In my judgment, they are to be perceived more as victims, not necessarily of men or of themselves in any simplistic reference to sexual behaviour, but victims of a society that all of us are responsible for, a society which encourages irresponsible sex, underspends on research and development into contraception, and tolerates social and economic policies which make choosing life very, very difficult for many women.
Nevertheless, abortions which are chosen purely in order not to inconvenience the life of the potential mother or couple or as a form of birth control are wrong, in my view, but so are all the decisions that all of us make when, for reasons of convenience, we make decisions that deny life to others.
Without making any strict comparisons, I ask Hon. Members to think of the fact that every cent we spend individually or collectively as a country on unnecessary items is money that could be spent to save dying children somewhere in the world, including Canada, but we do not propose laws to make frugality compulsory or tithing mandatory. We are all murderers in the name of convenience, to use the language of the pro-life movement. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, to use the language of St. Paul. Let he or she who is without sin in regard to putting his or her own personal convenience over the rights of starving and/or diseased children be the first to demand of pregnant women that they display a morality higher than that which we expect of ourselves or our country.
Enforcing such a demand would be even more spiritually pretentious. Nevertheless, I believe that a good abortion policy would provide for the kind of balanced counselling in which women contemplating abortion would be exposed to the variety of views that exist on abortion, including those that condemn it, and to the alternatives to abortion, provided that society is serious about supporting such alternatives.
Having said this, I also want to say that the debate over abortion to date has centred almost exclusively on whether or not a woman has the right to choose an abortion based on her own personal judgment of whether or not she wants to have a child. Unfortunately, regardless of what one's views are or have been on this question, the issue has become much more complicated of late with the growth of technologies that may make it possible to predict with considerable certainty various characteristics of the child the foetus will become if brought to birth.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
I see that you are indicating to me, Mr. Speaker, that I have only one more minute left. I wonder if I could beg the indulgence of the Elouse to continue my remarks and finish my speech.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow reasonable time for the Hon. Member to complete his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We have now a new debate, hardly begun, about whether or not, if personal choice is to be favoured, this personal choice extends to making choices not about whether or not to have a child but what kind of child to have. The prospect of women having abortions, not because they do not want children but because they want different children than those conceived, opens up a whole new arena of decision making which, in my view, should not be uncritically assumed even by pro-choice people to be adequately dealt with within the moral framework of personal choice even at the earliest stages of pregnancy.
Are pro-choice people, whose arguments may have been overtaken by genetic diagnosis and technology, really saying that the community is not entitled to have any say about any standards or regulations for what will be acceptable in this whole new range of possibilities? The possibility of gender selection becoming an acceptable practice is certainly one possibility, but there may be others. The extension of the consumer ethic to babies is something that I oppose. Designer babies should not be the wave of the future.
This is a dimension which I think the pro-choice community has not thought through and which I hope it will think through very soon, as indeed all of us should, for it is an area of new developments which have been largely left to the no doubt well intentioned but ad hoc decisions of doctors and scientists.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women has called for a Royal commission into all the questions posed by new reproductive technologies, and I think such a study is now absolutely necessary, precisely because there are questions to be answered that neither pro-life nor pro-choice people have addressed. The compromise we have before us is a compromise based on the current state of the debate, a debate which may be dated by new technologies.
The question of the use of foetal tissue for medical purposes is another issue. The government motion which provides effectively for abortion on demand in the earliest stage has not addressed these new realities. It is in this respect that I am tempted to vote against it. However, I have not made up my mind.
I will not be able to touch on all aspects of my thinking on this issue, but I would like to say a few more words about my critique of the assumptions and implications of the pro-choice rhetoric. For instance, some pro-choice rhetoric calls into question the validity of religious arguments per se. I may disagree with some of the religious arguments offered by my pro-life colleagues on the other side, but their arguments are not wrong just because they are religious. I have my own
arguments from a religious viewpoint and 1 would not want them dismissed just because they are religious. All arguments are religious in the sense that they are based on some claim about ultimate reality, including the arguments of the prochoice groups, unless they want to maintain that their arguments are just unfounded opinions. The attempt to make religious arguments inadmissible in public debate is something I will not support in any way.
In the end, such abortions as may be permitted by any new law can only be described as tragedies, certainly not as liberation; in some cases as sin as opposed to crime; and in many cases as reflection of a larger and more deep-seated pragmatism about human life that has its worst manifestation in the so-called "practical" dictates or a foreign and defence policy supported by many, although obviously not all, pro-life leaders of incinerating all the children of the world, born and unborn, in a nuclear war fought to preserve our standard of living based, as it is, on our privileged position in the global economy which makes many poor that we might continue to be affluent.
That would be the ultimate sin of material convenience and the mercy of God will be much less available to those who commit that sin than it is to the many women who have chosen abortion, as indeed was the mercy of Jesus himself much more available to the woman caught in adultery, an offence then punishable by death, than it was to the Pharisees or the powers and the principalities who were very good at seeing the sliver in the eyes of others but could not see the beam in their own.
The only people who have a self-righteous leg to stand on in this debate are those who live in voluntary poverty, who are against capital punishment, and who are pacifists on the issue of war. 1 do not fall into that category, nor do I claim to. It is only those who do who have what I would call a self-righteous leg to stand on.
There are many more things I could say, Mr. Speaker, and I regret that I am unable to do so. I would not want to push the tolerance of my colleagues any further than I have. 1 look forward to another opportunity to put the rest of what I have to say on the record.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow we are debating Motion No. 36 in order to get the sense of the House on the abortion issue. This is a very complex issue. It is a sensitive, moral, and religious issue.
I do not believe in abortion on demand. I do not believe that abortion should be used as a method of birth control. I strongly believe that abortion is a matter between a woman, her God, and her physician, and it should be permitted up to and including the eighteenth week of pregnancy. Of course, if the mother's life is physically or mentally at risk at any time, termination of the pregnancy should be permitted. An abortion is a medical procedure and should only be performed by a licensed physician in a licensed facility.
July 26, 1988

For most women the decision to have an abortion is one of the most difficult they will ever make. It has implications for women and families, for people with deeply held religious views. It requires careful thought and analysis.
Counselling is extremely important and all women deserve to be informed about the effects of an abortion and other means available to carry on the pregnancy. However, once she and her God-her belief, her morals-decide to have the operation, it is her decision.
I cannot support the pro-life faction. I truly respect their views and admire them. However, the Government cannot propose legislation which would be struck down again by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms respects the rights of women. Women have the right to control their bodies.
In a dramatic and forward looking step the Supreme Court ruled last January that women have rights which must be satisfied and protected. The Supreme Court's decision on abortion is no more and no less than confirmation of a woman's right to choose without the interference of strangers. It is not a celebration of abortion, it is not an instruction to abort.
An unwanted pregnancy is a heartache that no Supreme Court decision can heal. The best way to prevent abortion is to make sure that there are no unwanted pregnancies and that women are never left in the position of having to make that last resort choice. We do not solve a problem by making it illegal.
Banning abortions might be a satisfying moral answer, but it would be unworkable. It would force women who seek abortions to travel to the United States, that is, those who could afford to, or worse, risk their health in back alley clinics. It would compound the tragedy and put women's safety at risk.
Family life education is truly a necessity in the school curriculum right across Canada. Young people are not being taught about life, love, sex, and the reproduction of the human body. Unfortunately, many children today know nothing, or that which they do know is incorrect.
I recognize that the school system is under provincial jurisdiction, but surely in 1988 a national program with both federal and provincial funding could be initiated. All the facts should be taught; what a female is, a male, intercourse, contraception, and responsibility-the responsibility of pregnancy, of parenting, and of love. Let us teach life.
The motion before us states:
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-
Abortion
I would like to move an amendment to Motion No. 36, which will be seconded by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James), as follows, that the motion be amended by deleting the words "during the earlier stages of pregnancy" and replacing them with the following: "up to and including the eighteenth week of pregnancy", so that the amended motion will now read: "When, up to and including the eighteenth week of pregnancy: a qualified medical practitioner... and when the termination is performed by a qualified medical practitioner; and". I tabled this amendment prior to the debate this evening. The reason for my amendment is that "earlier stages" means 12 weeks. Amniocentesis cannot be performed until the fourteenth or fifteenth week of pregnancy in order to find out if there is a genetic disorder, deformity, or serious malformation of the foetus. It takes approximately 10 days to two weeks to receive the results of this test. For those who live in a remote area, it probably takes three weeks, for a total of 18 weeks. Also, some women do not have regular periods. Indeed, the very young who would not realize or recognize early pregnancy symptoms would need up to the 18 weeks.
Female bodies are different from one another. We are not all the same. We have different times of ovulation, intermittent cycles with some at 24 days, some at 28 days, and some at 30 days. We are not a machine that operates according to a manual; we are human.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that I am pro-choice, with limitations. 1 do not support abortion on demand. It is up to a woman and her God and her doctor to make the decision, with counselling. I strongly believe that abortion should be permitted up to and including the eighteenth week of pregnancy, by a licenced physician in a licenced facility.
I spent this afternoon, this evening, and now the wee hours of the morning listening to the views of my colleagues. I recognize and value all the information I have received and heard. On Thursday there will be a free vote, a non-partisan democratic vote. I shall be here to vote my belief.


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, not only are hundreds or thousands of abortions unacceptable, even one abortion of an unborn child is unacceptable. If we can begin by saving one life at a time we will have made progress in our society.
Despite my belief, I am concerned about why a woman believes she must reach a decision to abort her unborn child. Perhaps it is that society today is not giving the kind of support necessary for a woman who is carrying a child in order to go on with that pregnancy. There are a number of pressures that are brought to bear. Whether it is from the boyfriend, family, colleagues at work, but it must be addressed. We need more understanding and support for the woman who is carrying that child so that she will reach a different conclusion.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
Unfortunately, there is not enough time tonight to discuss how we change attitudes and society in order to give support to the woman who faces that monumental decision in her life about whether to carry the child through to completion of her pregnancy or to have an abortion because the support is not there for the woman and her child.
I acknowledge from the outset that God is the giver of life and that, in my opinion, neither I nor anyone else has the right to take the life of that unborn child. The Bible says that man was made in the image of God, and everything I have learned tells me that each of us has a soul, a body and we inhabit spirit. We will be conscious beings through eternity. We are created by God and we have a responsibility to respect and protect others whom God has also created.
Many great leaders have acknowledged God's laws. U.S. President Thomas Jefferson, in 1776, said in Philadelphia: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal, they are endowed with certain unalienable rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I believe that the unborn child has these same rights and that its life is also inalienable.
When God called Jeremiah to be a prophet he said: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; before thou came forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee ... ". Those words establish in my mind beyond a shadow of a doubt that the foetus is important to God from the point of conception onward.
I am disturbed when I hear some people say that while they agree abortion on demand is wrong, the unborn child with some form of physical or mental defect is perhaps a different case and aborting that life would be acceptable. I do not believe it is.
When God called Moses at the burning bush and wanted him to speak to the people of Israel, Moses was not very enthusiastic and told God that he was slow of speech and of a slow tongue, indicating that he probably was not the person to speak to the people of Israel. But God answered Moses by saying:
"Who hath made man's mouth or maketh the dumb or the deaf or the seeing
or the blind? Have not I", sayeth the Lord?
Whether we like it or not, it seems to me that God makes what we might call the perfect and the imperfect. I do not think God makes a mistake in that regard.
How many Members in this House have lived with a retarded or perhaps a severely handicapped person? Everyone who has would recognize and reinforce my belief that those people are special in this world and in fact enrich our daily lives. They give us insight and experience that we would otherwise never have. We gain some kind of appreciation for life by seeing the difficulties that some people live with. They are simply glad to be here on this earth, to be able to enjoy it and live with us. That makes us better and makes our communities stronger.
Some Members have talked about development before birth. Let me reiterate some of the comments that have been made. There has been much development well before the mother even is sure she is pregnant. By 18 to 25 days, the heart is already beating. At 45 days brainwaves can be detected. By nine to 10 weeks, the baby can squint, swallow, and move its tongue. By 13 weeks it can suck its thumb. Doctors accept that by at least six months the baby can survive outside the womb.
That leads me to the question of viability, about which I hear many people talking today. People seem to suggest that the foetus should be protected once it is viable, but up to that point protection is not so important. I cannot accept the argument of viability. After all, if we accept the definition of viability as being able to survive on one's own, who is viable? Is the newborn baby viable? Of course not. It could not live without the mother to feed it or a nurse to take care of it in the hospital.
We could ask if the one-year old could survive alone. It could not. Could a three-year old survive? Could it feed itself, provide clothes, or build a house? Of course not.
I do not think you or I could survive if we did not have our society to help us provide an interrelationship. We could not survive without friends and colleagues to provide a sense of purposefulness in life. We are interrelated from conception onward.
How did we let ourselves be stampeded into the belief that abortion is somehow acceptable? At some point it seemed that people began believing that the quality of human life gained respectability at the expense of human life itself. But many of these arguments are without foundation. Thousands of women were said to be dying each year at the hands of criminal abortionists. In the United States in the mid-1960s, some estimated that 10,000 women died each year of illegal abortion. However, on closer scrutiny, the U.S. Public Health Service reported that from all abortions, legal and illegal, only 189 deaths occurred in 1966, and 160 deaths in 1967.
It seems to me that inflation hit the abortion statistics perhaps before it hit the economy. Part of the problem today when we speak of abortion relates to terminology. It used to be said that an expectant mother was with child. Today, people who are pro-abortion and many scientists will only talk about the foetus. They talk about aborting the foetus. But, in reality we should be talking about killing children.
Where are we today? As everyone knows, the Supreme Court has struck down the abortion law we had in this country. In fact, right up until the moment of delivery abortion would seem to be acceptable because of the fact we do not have an abortion law. That is why we are here. We have a responsibility to bring in a new law.


July 26, 1988

I believe that the legalization of abortion on demand, if it is not reversed, will some day be looked upon by historians as the last turning point of our materialistic society in abandoning the advantages that came to our society from a Christian-Judaeo heritage in favour of a change in our culture where an unreal concern about materialism and personal freedom replaced our traditional view of the sanctity of life. 1 am afraid that it takes almost nothing to move from abortion, which is the killing of an unborn baby, to the killing of the retarded, the crippled, the sick, and the elderly. We have to show leadership in returning our society to the belief that the highest level of culture is when we protect the sanctity of human life.
Great nations in which freedom and justice have governed the affairs of the people have upheld this principle. This principle is the bedrock of our civilization. It is a principle which has distinguished free and democratic systems. When the moral foundations of our country are being shaken as they are now, it is time for us to act. I think that just as ancient Rome and other nations have died when they ceased to live by great principles, so can we.
Our choice is clear. We have to believe that we have the power to overcome the pro-abortion decision which was recently taken because of the Supreme Court action. I believe we have to do this since no nation can survive if it abandons natural moral leadership and embraces a doctrine of death. Some of my colleagues who have already spoken earlier today have moved true pro-life amendments and I look forward to supporting those amendments.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the subject of this motion and the amendments proposed concern an issue which, in the words of The Ottawa Citizen editorial of Monday of this week "no Government can settle easily and uncontroversially. It is a question of feeling and faith more than logic and science, and divisions must surely cut across all Party lines". I would like to say at the outset that the vast majority of my constituents, like most Canadians, are opposed to abortion on demand, and with this position I agree. I could not, as a matter of conscience, vote for any proposal that would allow for a termination of pregnancy simply upon request. Yet that is the present situation in Canada as a result of the Morgentaler decision rendered in January of this year.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the old law as being inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the majority of judges having found that Section 251 of the Criminal Code deprived a pregnant woman of the right to security of person under Section 7 of the Charter. We are, of course, aware that the Borowski case will soon be heard by the Supreme Court. Presumably, the justices will take that opportunity to define the rights of the unborn human. Pending that decision, and given the significance of the Charter, Parliament, in a very real sense, is left in limbo. That is why I commend the Government for bringing forward this debate to enable individual Members of Parliament to
Abortion
express their positions and ultimately to seek consensus on the preferred direction legislation might take.
This issue touches in the most profound way the absolute fundamentals of an individual's concept of life itself. It is the kind of issue that Members will decide freely, without Party discipline and irrespective of the representations of lobby groups, but Members will answer to their constituents. In this regard, I disagree with Edmund Burke. I believe that where there is a clear-cut expression of opinion within a constituency, under the circumstances of a free vote each Member ought to respect the wishes of the majority of his constituents.
Back in early 1985 I included an abortion questionnaire to be inserted in a householder and received over 1,500 responses at a time when this issue was not on the front burner. Some 80 per cent of my constituents rejected the idea of abortion on demand. Seventy-seven per cent felt that the law should give rights to the unborn child, and abortion was rejected in all situations other than where there was an imminent threat to the mother's life. With this direction, last year I voted in favour of the private Member's Bill put forward by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) which sought to afford to the unborn human protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Recently, after the Supreme Court of Canada decision on Morgentaler, I canvassed my constituents on the basis of three possible courses of action: first, to permit abortions only where the mother's life or physical health was in danger; second, to permit abortion without restriction; and, third, to permit abortion without restrictions during the first 16 weeks of pregnancy and thereafter only when the mother's life or physical health was in danger. Sixty-four per cent of my constituents chose option one. Only 9 per cent chose option two and 24 per cent chose option three. A clear majority of people in my riding believe that abortion should only be allowed if the mother's life or physical health is in danger. Most important, 68 per cent of women supported this position as compared to 59 per cent of the men. Given that this subject has been termed by some as a woman's issue, I regard this feminine response as most significant.
On many occasions when responding to constituents, I have indicated that I am against abortion on demand, that I am against free-standing abortion clinics, and that it would be my intention to support legislation that best restricts abortion to situations wherein the life of the mother is endangered. I have not always held these views. These are views which have evolved over a considerable period of time.
This debate obliges us to ask ourselves difficult questions. When does life begin? What is the nature of human life? What is the value of the individual? Who should choose between the life of a woman and her child? Does a woman's individual freedom override the life of an unborn human? What is the role of the state in all of this? The abortion

July 26, 1988
Abortion
question is only a part of a larger issue that is now just beginning to be examined as a result of technological and scientific advances. These advances, if indeed they can be called that, raise for the first time questions concerning genetic manipulation, research into recombinant DNA, fertility drugs, in vitro fertilization, multiple births and the accompanying issue of pregnancy reduction, transplants, implants, surrogate motherhood, and the experimental use of foetal tissue. 1 need not elaborate or speculate as to some of the bizarre possibilities inherent in some of these procedures. Suffice it to say that we must have some rules, some prohibitions and some sanctions.
I should now like to recognize my colleague, the Elon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) who as a private Member's initiative proposed a human life Act in an attempt to deal with these issues as well as those of euthanasia, suicide and all issues of intentional intervention in the human life cycle. The common theme linking these matters is the sanctity of human life and, as such, abortion is only one dimension which begs for resolution on moral, legal and ethical grounds.
The Government of West Germany has announced plans to ban research on human embryos, to outlaw surrogate motherhood, to curb artificial insemination, to prohibit production of foetal tissue for experimentation and to forbid choice of the child's sex in artificial insemination. It may be that a Royal commission should be struck in this country to receive evidence and to hear witnesses, to listen to experts and to examine in detail all aspects of these human life issues. I believe also, Mr. Speaker, that efforts have to be made educationally toward heightened individual responsibility and that further efforts have to be made to assist and improve adoption procedures. In passing, 1 cannot help but note how ironic it is that here in Canada, a vast nation in physical terms but short of population, we hear people supporting termination of life while at the same time complaining about what they see as rising immigration and lax refugee determination procedures. In fact, we should be encouraging a high birth rate in Canada in order to increase our population and our domestic consumption.
The recent Morgentaler Supreme Court decision and the comments of Madam Justice Wilson suggest a gestational approach wherein the relative value of the unborn presumably increases as the pregnancy advances. Under this approach the value of the foetus would eventually outweigh the freedom of the woman to decide as to her person. With the greatest respect, I say that the gestational approach is nothing more than abortion on demand. Whether the cut-off is 16 weeks or 20 weeks, whether you decide that life exists at 21 weeks and not at 20 or, conversely, whether you decide at 21 weeks the rights of the mother are extinguished in favour of the foetus seems illogical. A hard decision has to be made. It cannot be papered over. It will not go away. Either you have life or you do not, you have life at 20 weeks, at 18 weeks, or 16 weeks, or at eight weeks. It seems to me that eventually you get back to the moment of conception and that life springs from that moment. I repeat that the compromise motion, the gestational
approach is in my mind abortion on demand. This approach does nothing whatsoever for security of the person. It represents abortion on demand and would legalize fully 95 per cent of all abortions. With the greatest respect I say that you cannot say you oppose opening wide the door to abortion and then in the same breath say that up to 20 or 24 weeks it is a matter of choice. That, surely, is a direct contradiction.
It is now 1.45 a.m. Mr. Speaker. I have listened with interest and with the greatest respect to the views that have been put forward by a number of Members in this House yesterday afternoon and evening and early this morning. Finally, I want to say that as a Christian and as one whose personal philosophy is first and foremost the basic work of the individual, the sanctity of human life and the primacy of the family in our society, I have to take a decision and I choose life. In so far as possible, every human life from conception should be given a chance. If I am in error, I have to err on the side of the unborn human being.
Feeling as 1 do, and with the reassurance that I am supported in this by the clear majority of my constituents, I certainly cannot support the main motion. I will support proposals that best protect the unborn human. I will support the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) which I believe would restrict abortion to those situations wherein the life of the mother is endangered. Should that motion fail, I would support the motion placed by another of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) to the effect that abortion be permitted only where the mother's life or physical health is endangered. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to contribute to the discussion and the debate.
Mfr. Deputy Speaker: The Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) to be followed by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman).

Mir. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to participate in this evening's work, which has become this morning's work since it is now 1:46 a.m. It isn't Tuesday anymore, it's Wednesday. And on behalf of my consituents in Duvernay, I felt I had a duty to speak this morning. Even though almost all of those contituents must be asleep now because they have to go to work in the morning, they can sleep in peace because I have a duty to perform and it is a pleasure to rise in their name and debate an issue that over that past three or four days has become quite an important matter in Duvernay. A number of people have been doing nothing but tell us what they want, what they would like us to do for them; the churches have taken a hand, the parish priests, all parishioners were expected to sign postcards. In the space of those few days I have once again received 3,000 postcards. I have here 2,910 of them, received in three days, and that, Mr. Speaker, shows the level of interest in the riding of Duvernay and perhaps the whole City of Laval.
July 26, 1988

I have checked all these letters and cards-we have received a lot of letters from our fellow citizens, and quite apart from that there were 300 phone calls to our office from people who wanted to be heard. The most interesting thing is that the people who signed these cards weren't afraid to sign their names, their addresses, their postal code, and I shall make a point of getting back to all of them with my comments on the vote we will be holding this Thursday at noon.
Mr. Speaker, it isn't easy to reach a consensus. Probably we will never have one here in the House. The majority of my constituents oppose abortion. 1 believe that here in Parliament the majority also oppose abortion. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) said earlier: because some people claim that free choice would be their choice, just because someone is in favour of the freedom to choose, doesn't mean they like the idea of abortion.
There is another think that struck me just now, because when 1 discussed this question with a number of women in my riding, and in particular with my wife, almost every time I heard the comment, "It's a bunch of men, a bunch of chest-thumpers, who are trying to settle a woman's problem . . . '' Certainly, if the wives or the mothers of some of the MPs who have spoken this evening had spoken in their place, I can promise you the speeches would not have been the same. I'm sure they would have been very different! Nobody is "for" abortion, Mr. Speaker, and I am certain that women who have had abortions must regret it. It isn't easy to make a choice, it isn't easy for an MP when he sees the feelings that have been expressed over the past three days. For example, on Monday more than 350 letters and cards were brought to me in my office, signed by residents of my riding. That has to be respected, Mr. Speaker, because normally scarcely 1 or 2 per cent of the population express their views by one means or another, either by mail or by phone, and when it seems to be so difficult for people to take one minute to make themselves heard, then when more than 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 letters arrive in our offices you have to take five minutes and read them and pay attention. Sometimes it's easy to read them because all of them say roughly the same things, or usually there's a standard card that gets repeated over and over.
Mr. Speaker, soon we will be voting on the question of abortion, and it's going to be one of the most difficult and even agonizing, choices I have ever had to make in my whole career.
Like many of us, I'm sure, I find myself confronted with the necessity to make a choice that conflicts, be it even partially, with my personal convictions. It seems to me that in all intellectual honesty, I must place myself on the side of the opinion expressed by a majority of my constituents, several thousands of them. I have a duty to reflect the general opinion, the consensus, that has become obvious in the riding of Duvernay, and to follow the avenues and the explicit indications and the will clearly expressed by my voters in Duvernay,
Abortion
that is, to vote against the motion introduced by the government which we are considering here today. But I would be ready to vote for the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), Amendment A, which I would like to read into the record for the benefit of my fellow citizens:
That all of the words in the motion after the words "to protect the unborn; and" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Such legislation, giving pre-eminence to the protection of the foetus, should prohibit the performance of an abortion except when:
-two independent qualified medical practitioners have, in good faith and on reasonable grounds, stated that in their opinion the continuation of the pregnancy would, or would be likely to, endanger the life of the pregnant woman or seriously and substantially endanger her health and there is no other commonly accepted medical procedure for effectively treating the health risk; but grounds for such opinions are not to include
(I)	the effects of stress or anxiety which may accompany an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy, or
(II)	social or economic considerations.
Mr. Speaker, Amendment A, by my colleague the Hon. Member for Kitchener, seems to me to be very reasonable.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, even though I have received many very very touching letters, and some people even sent us videos, very touching photographs, associations that wrote, like SOS Bebe, the association of Quebec physicians for life... We even had certain people, American groups, who sent us their views, who asked us to be very careful before we made a decision. I also had a letter from a group represented by a Mr. Mongeau in my riding, and I'd like to read a paragraph of it:
"Dear Mr. Della Noce,
The lawyers, doctors and nurses of "Respect de la Vie", with whom we are working very seriously, provided us with figures in the past few weeks showing there were approximately 700 abortions every week in Quebec. In Ontario it is worse, approximately 1,100 per week. And the rest of Canada accounts for the remaining cases, out of a total of 110,000 abortions a year.
Canada = a great country dying."
This letter was sent to me in July of 1988 and it's signed by Mr. Mongeau, who asks me very earnestly to think long and hard before voting and to take into account all the petitions and letters that have been sent to us, and he finishes his letter by saying,
"Vote thoughtfully. Thank you."
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, it's getting very late and I know there are still people who want to speak. It seems obvious to me that in my capacity as representative for Duvernay, I have a duty to set aside, in all honesty, my personal convictions and express those of the majority whose voice I am here today, as I did in the vote on the death penalty. I have a great deal of respect for my constituents, because as an MP we have to wear the MP's hat. We aren't ordinary citizens any longer, we are citizens at the service of our community, and I say to my community, "I am here to say what you have told me to say. Even though it's 1:55 in the morning and you're asleep, my duty is to do what you have asked me to do. And that is what I have done today in this House, with all due respect." I know there will be some people who won't agree with my choice. It is impossible that everybody could approve.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
I see certain people who have argued in favour of the right to freedom of choice. I respect that too. It troubles me to see so many abortions in Canada. Who will perform them once a Bill is passed strictly forbidding abortion? A great deal remains to be done, and I hope that we will be able to do everything possible so that those girls and women can get help one way or another, and I say to my fellow citizens, "I have done my duty. It doesn't always reflect my personal thinking. I'm not here as an individual, I'm here for you, and I have made the choice you asked me to make, and I will be voting against the motion that is on the Table today."


Mr, Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, it is now 2 a.m. in the House of Commons in Ottawa. When we walk out of these doors tonight into the streets of Ottawa we will find that it is very much closed down. There will be other areas open tonight in Ottawa, and they are the Ottawa hospitals. If one were to visit the wards, in every one of those hospitals one would find expectant mothers. Many babies are being born right now in Ottawa, in Vancouver, and other places in Canada. Many expectant mothers are waiting for the birth of their first, second, or third child. They are waiting with different emotions.
I am sure that there is at least one expectant mother who has an expectant father pacing the hallway in anticipation, who has an excited family waiting at home for the news and for the father to phone home. In fact, they are waiting for a child with a home that is full of love and opportunity surrounding that mother, child, and family. I am sure there is an expectant grandfather and grandmother waiting for that call, no matter how late at night. They waited to hear that very call in that same expectant way for their child and they now await for their grandchild. I am sure there are expectant mothers with emotions like that.
Perhaps in the next bed there is an expectant mother who is more alone than we are, the four or five of us present in the House of Commons tonight. Perhaps there is no father in the home, or perhaps not knowing who the father is. Perhaps there are no parents to give support to that mother expecting that child. Perhaps the mother is jobless and faces raising a child on welfare as a single parent, alone, afraid, but perhaps also committed to giving that child life and letting that child find its potential in its society. It might be because of some religious feeling that she has, or simply that that mother feels it is just not right to take the life of the child inside her.
I am sure there is another expectant mother who probably will not be delivering that child because she has made the decision, after looking at a series of circumstances, that she will not give life to her child, but that she will ask the doctor to take the life of her child from her, to kill that child. One might want to put it in nicer words, but that is the reality.
I feel very different emotions in response to all three. The first mother will share her joy with that very wanted child. For
the second mother I have an empathy, and a sorrow that I as a Parliamentarian have been unsuccessful in creating the kind of society that would not see even her child be a joy to her. We have not provided opportunities for adoption, we have not provided opportunities to support that mother to help her raise that child to its full potential. We have not created the social atmosphere where life and children are valuable and needed in our society. We should try to provide for that mother and her child the extended family or the kind of support mechanisms that would replace that extended family if it is not there for that mother.
I am disappointed in myself and in this House of Commons, and I am pleased that we are starting now to talk about child care and alternatives for child care so that all children can be more welcomed into this world.
For mother number three I feel great sorrow. I feel compassion for her in her decision. I feel sorrow for her and know that out of her decision can come nothing but more sorrow, as well as the death of the child, the sorrow of the mother, the hurt for that mother, because no mother makes that choice easily, or happily. She really is making the choice on the basis of what she believes, her conditioning, her values, her circumstances. I would say to her that freedom of choice is broadened, not limited, when one opts for life.
We must consider not just the choices of the mother; we must consider the choices of all of the partners in creating life, in creating and nurturing life and children. We must consider not only the mother but, of course, the child. As the Supreme Court said, "we must consider". We must consider the rights of the mother, the rights of the child, the rights of the father, the rights of society to that child and, of course, we must consider the other partner, the God of that child.
The last time I spoke in this House I spoke about an issue, about life. I spoke in support of an environmental issue, asking that this House of Commons preserve and add to the Pacific Rim National Park, a primitive wilderness area containing the tallest Sitka spruce trees known in the world. I listened in this House of Commons to the Liberal speakers, the NDP speakers, the Conservative speakers. I listened to all speakers without one word of dissent, saying yes, we must save the lives of the giant spruce trees in the Carmanah watershed. Everyone agreed.
I do not understand how this same House of Commons which said "save the trees", can say a few days later "kill the child". "Save the trees, kill the child". Where is our value? Where is our sense of priority? Somehow we should be able to teach those who believe the value of a balanced environment that part of that balance is a balance of population. If we cannot reach that group on the basis of their moral feelings or their other kinds of values, let us talk environmentally about the balance of ages of people of our society.
July 26, 1988

In Canada right now we have 10 people working for every one person that is retired, 10 people who will work and raise money and pay the pensions and social benefits of our society. By the year 2000, there will not be 10 people working for every one retired, but only five people working for every one who is retired. How will those five people be able to work and support that one?
It gets even more frightening than that if you look into the early 2000s and you find out that in Canada there will only be three people working for each one retired. The reason is that our low end, the children in our society, are not being replaced, which is another kind of social value that young Canadians are going to have to look at. We are going to have to replace that young end of children coming into our society, hopefully through wanted pregnancies of Canadian people. Where the Canadian people cannot produce that young end of our population, we will have to import that on the basis of immigration, because we cannot exist economically on a ratio of three people working for one retired.
At the same time as we see the problem coming we eliminate-no. Not eliminate. That is not the right word. We kill one million potential Canadian babies. We rob that potential and we destroy that population age balance in our society. It does not matter whether you are talking common sense, whether you are talking moral values, whether you are talking human values, we need children in our society for a multitude of reasons that relate to all of those things.
I have spoken in this House of Commons on this issue before. I have voted in this House of Commons in two different Parliaments; on the Constitution and for pro-life amendments. I have voted for the amendment of the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges). He is a courageous man who has made further amendments that I will vote for again.
It comes down to what is Canada all about. What is it that we value and that we respect? If we do not respect life, if we do not want to nurture life, it is not the kind of Canada that I came here to speak about, to protect, to preserve, to develop. I came here to encourage my children and my grandchildren to continue the great building of this nation, and I want them to build it for and with life. That is why I will vote for life motions in this House of Commons and why I appreciate this opportunity to stand here and express this view, which I believe is a view of myself, my family and my community.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, it is a lonely night-not just with regard to the numbers in the House-but it is a lonely night because this is a lonely issue. It is an issue in which we stand alone, some of us, because there are those of us who will differ with our constituents. There are those who have not accurately been able to ascertain the views of their constituents because it is an issue on which the country is rather deeply divided.
It is lonely for me because I am about to declare myself. It is not a new position for me but it is the first time that I have had
Abortion
the opportunity to declare myself in this House. I did so during the last election campaign, and I do so now, partly as a father of three daughters of child bearing age. We have been served until January 28 of this year by the 1969 law, Section 251 of the Criminal Code, which in the 1960s was deemed by the then Minister of Justice, presently the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), to be an appropriate compromise in perhaps the classic Canadian mode. However, time and events have overtaken that Section of the Criminal Code because we now have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
On January 28 the Supreme Court, by a five to two majority judgment, held that Section 251 contravenes the rights of a pregnant woman under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The majority of the judges further held that this breach could not be saved by the reasonable limitation clause under Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and therefore concluded that the abortion legislation was invalid.
Since the rendering of that decision there seems to have been some division in interpretation of the ramifications of the Supreme Court judgment. Pro-choice advocates celebrated a decision they believed would give a woman complete control of her body. Anti-abortion groups mourned the ruling as a devastating defeat which said that women could now get abortions anywhere at any time. The truth of the matter, Sir, is that both sides are mistaken, the Supreme Court ruling says neither of those things. The majority did not rule that women have an unconditional right to abortion under the Charter. On the contrary, the Supreme Court merely concluded that Section 251 impaired irretrievably a pregnant woman's right to security of the person embodied in Section 7 of the Charter.
Justices Beetz, Estey and Wilson expressly state that law restricting abortions might yet be consistent with the Charter and that at some point in the later stages of pregnancy the state's interest in protecting the foetus might be sufficiently compelling to override the rights that women otherwise have under the Charter. This approach is not inconsistent with that taken by most other western nations. In fact, abortion based on gestation appears to be the currently preferred route. Indeed, the motion before us would take us down that road. However, is the world-wide trend the way to go? Should Canada instead seek her own way?
There is a dissent from the Supreme Court judgment written by Mr. Justice McIntyre and concurred in by Mr. Justice La Forest. I am going to quote selectively and I hope with reasonable representation from Justice McIntyre's dissent.
In my view, he wrote, the Chief Justice's whole position depends for its validity upon a proposition that interference with the right constitutes an infringement of her right to security of the person. All laws, it must be noted, have the potential for interference with individual priorities and aspirations. In fact, the very purpose of most legislation is to cause such interference. It is only when such legislation goes beyond interfering with priorities and aspirations, and abridges rights, that courts may intervene.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
In my view, he said, it is clear that before it could be concluded that any enactment infringed the concept of security of the person it would have to infringe some underlying right included in or protected by the concept. The proposition that women enjoy a constitutional right to have an abortion is devoid of support in the language of Section 7 of the Charter or any other section. It cannot be said that the history, traditions and underlying philosophies of our society would support the proposition that a right to abortion can be implied in the charter.
Finally, he said in so far as it may be said that the administrative scheme of the Act has operated efficiently, a proposition which may be highly questionable, it is caused principally by forces external to the statute, the external circumstances being a general demand for abortion irrespective of the provisions of Section 251. It is not open to the courts in his view to strike down a statutory provision on this basis.
Prior to 1969, and indeed since that time, women in this country have been to a greater or lesser extent unduly deprived of their proper rights. The Charter goes a long way toward establishing in our minds, our laws, and in our hearts, that women are in the fullest sense of the word persons under the law. That principle was first established as recently as 58 years ago in the famous Persons case, in which my kinswoman took part.
However, we must also look at whether or not there is personhood in the unborn. I would like to look at two possible approaches to that particular consideration, one logical and one scientific. I quote first from the research paper Is The Human Embryo a Person? by John Gallagher of the Human Life Research Institute. He states:
The principle of economy states that one should not posit the existence of some further reality to explain phenomena when the phenomena can be explained just as well by the realities one already knows to exist. To posit the existence of this further reality which is not demanded by the phenomena is to go beyond the available evidence, to be fanciful rather than realistic.
To be a particular human person is to be a particular living organism. This human person began to live when this organism began to live. We can consider two possible explanations: first, that the human person begins to live at the time of fertilization; second, that the human person begins to live at some time later than fertilization. The first explanation is the more economical one. It holds that the phenomena are explained by the gradual changes which we know take place, without any change of first being in which a non-personal organism ceases to exist and a new organism, a human person, begins to exist. The second explanation posits the additional reality of this change in first being. Clearly we should hold to the first, more economical, explanation unless there is evidence requiring the positing of this additional reality, the change in first being.
Pretty heavy stuff but indeed science points in the same direction. Paul Ramsey has written:
Indeed, microgenetics seems to have demonstrated what religion never could; and biological science, to have resolved an ancient theological dispute. The human individual comes into existence first as a minute information speck, drawn at random from many other minute informational specks his parents possessed out of the common human gene pool. This took place at the moment of impregnation . . . Thus it can be said that the individual is
whoever he is going to become from the moment of impregnation. Thereafter, his subsequent development may be described as a process of becoming the one he already is. Genetics teaches that we were from the beginning what we essentially still are in every cell and in every human attribute.
Is abortion then wrong? Where is it that we are going in considering an unfettered access to abortion or even a reasonably available access to abortion? I quote now from an article by Mr. Richard Bastien who is the author of the book La Solution Canadienne. He says:
For freedom to remain alive, two ingredients are necessary. The first is the notion that we all are responsible for one another. This is a basic tenet of Western culture. From it we learn the importance of interdependence and the truth that the individual achieves his own fulfilment in service to others.
The second ingredient is the notion that every human life has an inherent value. This idea constitutes the basis for individual rights; it lies at the very heart of our political traditions.
The pro-choice stance is incompatible with both ideas. By asserting that abortion is a private matter, it denies we have any responsibility for each other. By defining life's value only in relation to society or those affected by a life, it denies life's inherent value. It is impossible to support a pro-choice position without at the same time arguing that certain human lives should be sacrificed to the privacy or convenience of others.
This is the utilitarian view of life, which holds that whatever solves a problem on the practical level must be considered acceptable. No action is right or wrong as such. The morality of an act is to be determined only by the desirability of its effect. In short, the end justifies the means.
There are many in society who sincerely believe that because we have now a more and more pluralistic society in its origins and in its beliefs, therefore we must seek the lowest common denominator in our moral standards. I quote from a research paper done by a distinguished barrister and solicitor, Iain T. Benson, Chairman of the Civil Liberties Section of the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Bar Association. Benson writes:
The statement is sometimes made that Canada is a pluralistic country and that, therefore, one must acknowledge each person's differing beliefs.
As a recognition of Canada's multi-cultural make-up this statement is accurate; where it becomes unacceptable is when a valid recognition of cultural diversity is confused with moral pluralism. To postulate moral pluralism from ethnic and social diversity amounts to stating that because different groups have different cultural and ethnic beliefs and practices, morality is various and, therefore relative ...
Throughout the centuries many of the greatest thinkers have discussed the importance of learning and preserving the central truths which define the society. These truths are not relative or subjective but transcendent. Michael Polanyi has written that:
... the adherents of a great tradition are largely unaware of their own premises, which lie deeply embedded in the unconscious foundations of practice ... if the citizens are dedicated to certain transcendent obligations and particularly to such general ideals as truth, justice, charity, and these are embodied in the tradition of the community to which allegiance is maintained, a great many issues between, citizens and all to some extent, can be left-and are necessarily left-for the individual consciences to decide. The moment, however, a community ceases to be dedicated through its members to transcendent ideals, it can continue to exist undisrupted only by submission to a single centre of unlimited secular power.
July 26, 1988

I made a declaration when I ran for Parliament in 1984 that I stood for the preservation of life and that I opposed abortion on demand. Now that the highest court in the land has spoken, the door is open for legislation which strikes a balance between the rights of the expectant mother and those of the unborn child.
My duty, as I see it, is twofold. First it is to work for the reduction of the number of abortions by reducing the demand for them and second, it is to deal with the availability question through appropriate legislation which would preserve and protect as many unborn lives as possible.
Notwithstanding my declared position on the issue, I took it upon myself earlier this year to ascertain the views of my constituents. I concede that this is not a statistically valid survey in that only those who are interested in the issue chose to respond. This survey is based on a sample of 2,319 responses.
Should abortion be available on demand: yes, 47 per cent; no, 48 per cent; not sure, 3 per cent. Should the mother's rights prevail over those of the unborn child: yes, 53 per cent; no, 36 per cent; not sure, 6 per cent. Should all unborn children have legal status; yes, 38 per cent; no, 47 per cent; not sure, 10 per cent. Should the law recognize that both the mother and the unborn have some rights: yes, 61 per cent; no, 27 per cent; not sure, 9 per cent. So we see that there is profound division on the issue.
Now the question arises: if abortions are restricted, what will be the consequences? I received in my office not long ago a letter from a distinguished Edmonton pathologist, Dr. T. A. Kasper, and I will quote briefly from it. He writes:
As a pathologist, I feel it is my duty to advise you of some very misleading statements that I have heard vocalized by a variety of pro-abortion activists ...
The most deceptive statement of all goes something like this. "Before abortion on demand, there were 30,000 or 40,000 women dying every year as a result of botched up back alley abortions"...! worked for over ten years performing or supervising autopsies in the busiest morgue in the City of Edmonton ...
Over that time, I personally could not recall a single case of a death due to an illegal abortion.
That statement of Dr. Kasper appears to be borne out by a study conducted by Ian Gentles of the Human Life Research Institute which concluded the following:
Maternal deaths from abortion declined steadily from 1940 or earlier. The legalization of abortion in the late 1960s had little effect upon a trend that had already been established for over a quarter of a century. It was not legalization but improved treatment of infection that virtually eliminated abortion deaths between 1940 and 1980.
I intend to follow this debate very carefully. I intend to listen to the arguments that are made. 1 intend to study all the amendments which are before us.
Like my colleague from Duvernay, I am attracted in a way to the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer). 1 think that that is perhaps where many of us will end up. I intend, though, to see whether there is not a way to have a more restrictive law, but hand in hand
Abortion
with that law I think must go some clear, valid and funded alternatives to the choice of abortion which I suspect most women undertake as a last resort.
Our society does not provide adequate resources to see a woman through to the end of a pregnancy, a single woman particularly, an abandoned woman, a woman who may already have a number of dependants of her own. Our attitudes, to be honest, do not sustain that woman either. However, I am somewhat reassured by correspondence I have received from a distinguished lawyer in my constituency who practises family law. She tells me that the demand for children by would-be adoptive parents is such that the normal channels are not satisfying the demand. Indeed, those who have waited four to five years for adoptive children are now seeking the private route rather than the public route.
I find that the main motion does not satisfy the issue. The main motion is couched in the kind of moral relativism that the 1969 law is couched in. Only if we recognize and embrace a broader, positive social agenda for enhancing procreative choice can we begin to find lines of strategy that will simultaneously bring about both less reliance on abortion and less resort to coercion of women and enforced childbearing.
I believe we should not be seeking a legal compromise but that we should be looking for a truly moral solution.


Mrs. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak on abortion, a very difficult and sensitive subject and one that has provoked a great deal of controversy. Abortion is a very personal choice, which belongs to the woman, who often finds herself faced with a decision that cannot be reconciled with her religion, her moral values, her family life and her convictions.
Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians we have to make a decision that will affect the rights of women as well as the rights of the foetus, and we must try to balance those rights.
The motion before this House approaches the problem from three angles. There is the pro-life angle, formally forbidding abortion even when the health or life of the mother is at stake. It is certainly a right-to-life position, Mr. Speaker. But what about the rights of the woman when her health is in danger? I think this position has lost its relevance in the evolution of our free and democratic society. We are no longer in an archaic society. That position would take us back to the quacks and the knitting needles.
The second approach, from the pro-choice angle, would permit abortion at any stage of pregnancy. This position seems to me irrational. The right to life of both the woman and the foetus cannot be reconciled with a woman's being able to terminate her pregnancy at any point, for no matter what reason, good or bad.

July 26, 1988
Abortion
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is the moderate position, allowing a woman to interrupt her pregnancy in the early stages if she so decides, and also allowing abortion in the later stages of the pregnancy when two doctors agree and the mother's health is in danger.
Taking that as our basis, Mr. Speaker, we would have to be careful to define very clearly in our legislation the concept of health, which in my opinion should include both physical and mental health. This would be in accordance with the United Nations definition.
We would also have to legislate on the question of what exactly are the early stages of pregnancy and what are the later stages.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that in Canada only 0.03 abortions are performed in the last trimester of pregnancy, because of serious problems for the mother of foetal abnormality.
The state should make certain services available to pregnant women, which in the case of certain women could influence their decision to terminate the pregnancy or not. The federal and provincial Governments should also provide a basic educational system so that young people and our society generally would be better informed about contraception.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Morgentaler case, as expressed by Chief Justice Brian Dickson, and I quote, "Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus an infringement of security of the person."
In the Morgentaler case Mr. Justice Wilson said, and I quote, "The right to "liberty" contained in s.7 guarantees to every individual a degree of personal autonomy over important
decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. Liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve such decisions, but it does require the state to respect them."
"The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision, and in a free and democratic society the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."
Mr. Speaker, the state must be sensitive to the rights of the pregnant woman. The state must also achieve a balance: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives every individual, which includes all Canadian women, the right to see to their own protection, both physical and mental, which for a woman necessarily involves the right to make decisions about her personal life, her capabilities, her psychological and physical fitness for bringing a child into the world.
Think, Mr. Speaker, of the woman whose pregnancy endangers her physical or mental health. Think of the woman who becomes pregnant as the result of rape or incest. In such cases, does the state have the right to make criminals of these women when they get abortions?
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of my position as a woman and a Member of Parliament, the middle-of-the-road position seems to me to be the most reasonable. It is the position of the majority of the voters I represent. The decision to terminate a pregnancy during its early stages is a personal decision that lies with the woman.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Since it is now 2:35 a.m., pursuant to the Order passed earlier, the debate and the House will adjourn until 2:00 p.m. today, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2:35 a.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, July 27, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers