1989-11-23

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that I have been notified of a vacancy in the representation in the House of Commons for the electoral district of Laurier-Sainte-Marie, in the Province of Quebec, following the death of Jean-Claude Malepart. Accordingly, I have addressed an official order to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Justice I am pleased to table in both official languages a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the responses to several petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36(8).
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-fourth report of the striking committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, indeed an honour, to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions from a number of people from Kamloops, British Columbia, who point out their reasons why they are opposed to the government's goods and services tax and feel that it will bring very serious economic hardship to so many families in the area. They are asking the government to stop proceeding with this goods and services tax and go back to the drawing board in an effort to come up with a real tax reform package that is fair and just to all Canadians.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of a number of people from all parts of Canada, including western Canada, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland, Alberta and Saskatchewan, who point out that one-sixth of all Canadian children live in poverty today. The percentage of children living in poverty is increasing year by year. In some provinces the figure is as high as 26 per cent of children living in a condition of poverty. They are urging the Parliament of Canada to support Private Members' Motion No. M-254 which calls upon the Government of Canada to negotiate with the provinces to provide a comprehensive bill of rights for children.

Routine Proceedings VIA RAIL


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, again from western Canadians who have filled out a petition questioning the judgment of the government in its decision to curtail or reduce VIA Rail passenger service. They are asking the government to reverse that decision and actually reinvest adequate money into VIA Rail so that we can provide a first-class rail service in Canada as virtually every other western industrialized nation is doing.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petitions on behalf of the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex, in particular the Alvinston-Watford-Bothwell area, who are objecting most strenuously to the goods and service tax because of what it is going to do to their communities and the services provided.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the same area objecting strenuously to the discontinuation of VIA Rail services to some areas of Canada and the stringent cutbacks that are being imposed on Canadians who depend upon the railways as a viable alternative to highway congestion and airport delays.
I am honoured to present these petitions on behalf of these constituents of Lambton-Middlesex.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to file with the House of Commons today a petition that is entitled "Help Save the Rouge". Many members of Parliament have heard about the Rouge Valley in the northeast section of Metro Toronto, 5,000 acres. It really has been quite a miracle in that this 5,000 acres is still in a wildlife wilderness state.
The petitioners are asking that it remain so. This land is 80 per cent owned by the province of Ontario. The petitioners are asking that this endangered wildlife and wilderness be saved in the national interest. They join with the royal commissioner, the Hon. David Crombie, who has stated that the Rouge Valley should be protected as a natural heritage park. The mayor of Scarborough, the federal Minister of the Environment and the Save the Rouge Valley system organization have all expressed that support. They are calling on the Government of Canada to work with the Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as a Canadian heritage land or provincial park.


Mr. Charles  De@: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I too have the honour to table a petition which has been deemed correct as to form and content by the clerk of petitions. This petition was signed following an information meeting on the Finance Minister's proposed goods and services tax and 27 petitioners from all municipalities in my riding point out in particular that the Conservative Government has prided itself in cleaning up the public finances and firmly attacking the serious problem of Canada's debt and deficit. They also say that the Conservative Government does not intend to mortgage Canada's future and leave future generations with a country that could not even afford to meet its people's basic needs anymore.
For these reasons, the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to quickly pass the federal sales tax reform proposal that will be submitted to it by the Hon. Minister of Finance.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting, pursuant to Standing Order 36, two petitions, one from the community of Hall Beach in my riding and one from Lake Harbour, also in my riding.
One must understand that when I present these petitions, my riding consists of three time zones. Therefore, when I present these petitions from different parts of my riding it does not mean that they are within blocks of each other. It means that they are miles apart. At the same time they are all objecting to the proposed goods and services tax.
November 23, 1989


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege this morning to present three petitions that have all been certified correct as to form and content pursuant to Standing Order 36.
These petitions are signed by residents mainly from the city of Red Deer and the town of Innisfail. They ask that their names be added to the approximately 90,000 other Canadians who have called upon Parliament to revise the laws of Canada relating to extradition to allow the Minister of Justice to order the extradition of alleged or convicted criminals at any time after their apprehension in Canada, even during their period of incarceration for crimes committed in Canada.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I too have some petitions which I am honoured to present. It relates to the GST, the gouge and swindle tax that this government is trying to shuffle through here.
The people of Spanish Room are outraged with this tax, as are the people of St. Jets and La Poile, all in my riding, and Harbour Breton. The people of Grand Bruit do not like this tax. In Ron Connor East they cannot stand for it. In St. Veronica's they are signing petitions and mailing them out to me.
In Burgeo they see what this tax is going to do to them. In Boxey, Petty Fort, Garden Cove, in Burin, in the head of Bay d'Espoir they are against this 9 per cent goods and services tax, as they are in Grey River and St. Lawrence and St. Alban's, Velorme, all over the riding of Burin- St. George's. The petitions come in, dozens and dozens of them. St. Bernard's, English Harbour West, Border, Burin Bay Arm, Garnish, Rose Blanche, Red Harbour, Grand Banks. Even people in Whitburn-not quite in my riding-but people over in other ridings are getting into the act. Lewin's Cove, that is in my riding. St. George's, Francois, Milltown.


Mr. Merrithew:: Time.


Roger Simmons: I am only using a word or two on each petition. I can present them individually if the minister would rather.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Don't waste your time.


Roger Simmons: These people, I say to the minister, are not wasting their time. They are hoping that somebody
Routine Proceedings
over there is still listening. Port aux Basques, they are against this goods and services tax. In Black Tuck Cove, Port aux Bras, Isle Lamorts Marguerite-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask the member to please conclude.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to save the time of the House. Instead of presenting these petitions individually, I was reading a name from each petition. If the Speaker would prefer, I can present them separately.
Francois, they are against it. That is one group that I would like to table.
I have another group here who are also against this goods and services tax. In the Codroy Valley, Channel Port aux Basques.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has been here for a long time, longer than I have and I think he knows that what he should do is summarize briefly the petitions.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank you Sir. I am summarizing in the briefest possible terms. I am using no more than than the name of a community for each petition and I shall do it as quickly as I can, Sir.
Isle-aux-Morts. Mr. Speaker, these petitions I would like to table. I would like to table some petitions against the goods and services tax from the good people of Baie d'Espoir, Stephenville, and so many other communities. Kippens. I think you get the idea, Mr. Speaker, that all over the riding of Burin-St. George's in every single one of the 158 communities there are people by the thousands who are outraged absolutely by what the government is trying to ram down their throats.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for presenting petitions today.


Roger Simmons: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, a total this time of around 4,400 people have put their names on those petitions and I hope somebody over there is listening.


Mr. AI Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of 3,412 constituents of Okanagan Centre who ask Parliament to revise the laws of Canada relating to extradition to allow the justice minister of Canada to order the extradition of alleged and convicted criminals at any time after the apprehension in Canada, even during this

Routine Proceedings
period of incarceration for crimes committed in Canada. The total of these petitions now stands close to 100,000.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present to this House on behalf of a number of constituents of mine, St. Louis, Domremy and Hoey, my neighbours, and a number of people from the city of Saskatoon, who humbly sheweth that the tax that is being suggested by the government is going to be difficult for them and is going to impose on them considerably during the next few years.
They call upon the government to reject the current proposal of a goods and services tax and put in place a broad tax which would be fair to all the ordinary citizens of Canada.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I have the honour and the privilege of tabling 12 petitions, the first of a series, from people who humbly pray and call upon the government to cancel the proposed legislation on goods and services tax.
This tax will cause serious hardship and is unfair to low- and middle-income Canadians.

The rest of them are objecting strongly to the tax that will be hidden from Canadians and will be applied to virtually every single purchase they make.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps because they did not have a chance to send them to their own members, I have petitions here from residents from Saint-Hubert, Can-diac, Senneville, and from all over the South Shore, the Laurentians, the Eastern Townships, and several ridings on Montreal Island, including my own, Saint-Laurent- Cartierville.
These petitions are tabled pursuant to Standing Order 36.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, the privilege and the duty of submitting to you today 15 petitions from the people of the riding of Sudbury. This is not the first time I have presented such petitions and I can assure you that they keep coming in. I have at least 30 names per petition for a total of approximately 400 names just today.
These people are extremely concerned with the proposed goods and services tax and they ask that the government reconsider imposing this tax on Canadians. They are extremely worried about the impact of this tax on their day-to-day activities and whether they will be able to continue these activities.
They are extremely concerned with the fact that the tax will apply to their heating bills. As you know, we are somewhat north of here and it is cruel to impose a tax on something as vital as heating.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by hundreds of residents of Hamilton Mountain who add their names to the approximately 25,000 that I have already brought to Ottawa. These petitioners have spoken out overwhelmingly against the government's proposed 9 per cent goods and services tax. They believe the tax is unfair and that it places an unnecessary additional burden on low and middle-income Canadians.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon this House to reject the 9 per cent goods and services tax proposal.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two sets of petitions today pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first is signed by 1,200 students of St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia. This group petition includes signatures of residents of the Town of Antigonish and the county.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that VIA Rail service, serving the students of St. F.X. is not eliminated. Hundreds of these students use the train as an economical and efficient means of transportation to their respective homes in the area and there is no substitute for that existing service. The Halifax-Sydney passenger service is necessary for these students to

November 23, 1989
[Stage Direction]
pursue their higher education; bus service cannot accommodate their large numbers. The town and country residents have the same strong concerns over the impending loss of this service to citizens of the town and surrounding areas.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Second, I have the honour and privilege to present petitions on behalf of over 1,200 petitioners from Canso, Nova Scotia, which is also in my riding. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to intervene, as and where necessary, to protect the livelihood of the fish plant workers of Canso who are faced with the possible closure of their main industry, the National Sea Products fish processing plant.
This plant employs over 700 workers from Canso and surrounding areas, including 140 trawler workers. The effect of closure will be devastating not only to the residents of the town of Canso but to all of Guysborough county.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, last but not least, I have a petition containing several hundred names of residents of communities along the right-of-way of the Esquimalt-Nanaimo railway system who are petitioning Parliament to call upon the government to maintain the existing VIA network, upgrade VIA equipment and guarantee VIA sufficient support to carry out its mandate to provide passenger service and, in particular, these constituents are referring to the service on Vancouver Island.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of farmers from Saskatchewan. These farmers are concerned with the direction in which this government is moving in respect of agriculture in this country. They are particularly concerned over the future of orderly marketing and supply management. They are calling on the government to reinstate oats under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and for the
Routine Proceedings
Wheat Board to provide not only oats but barley with the same protection that wheat now has under the Wheat Board Act.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 145 will be answered today.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East): Is it the intention of the government to introduce an amendment to the Canada Elections Act to grant urban voters the same right to "swear in" at the polls on election day as is now enjoyed by rural voters and, if so, on what date?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: The government is committed to making voting easier and more accessible to Canadians. In June of 1982, the Government introduced legislation (Bill C-79) which included provisions to improve enumeration procedures. No consensus could be reached to allow this and other important amendments to the Canada Elections Act to be made prior to the last election.
On November 15,1989 the government announced the establishment of a commission of inquiry to make recommendations on changes to be made to Canada's electoral laws.
The enumeration process will be one of the aspects of election procedures which will be examined by the commission.


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. This is a critically important issue, an issue which we as legislators I am sure have all had to struggle with. How can I discuss abortion when this is really not an abortion bill? This government has brought in legislation, Bill C-43, which it hopes will address these problems. Bill C-43 does not address the problems, Bill C-43 certainly does not correct the problems, and Bill C-43 fails the fundamental test. Therefore it must not be passed.
Let me deal with some of the arguments I have been hearing from both sides. The first argument is that at least now we have some legislation, inadequate as it is. It is better than having no legislation which of course is the equivalent of abortion on demand.
Let us pass this bill and get it into committee where we can make some changes. We should draft the amendments. We should approve them and incorporate them into the legislation. However, before it receives Royal Assent, we should send it to the Supreme Court on a reference to test it against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is the duty of the governing party to bring forth legislation. It is also the duty of the Opposition to challenge, correct and refine this legislation. It is also the duty of this House, then, to pass or reject the proposed law. It is also the duty of Parliament to legislate. What this government has done is bring forth a neutral proposal without substance.
The proposed new abortion law has as its overriding objective the balance of interests, the rights and interests of women and society's interest, in the protection of the foetus. This legislation does not realize this objective. This legislation really satisfies no one, not those who
oppose the termination of pregnancy or those who prefer choice as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.
The proposed legislation is contrary to this decision. It invites any third party to press criminal charges against a doctor or a woman if there is evidence that an unlawful early termination was performed; that is, an abortion that was performed without first ensuring it was in the best interest of the woman's psychological, mental or physical health.
The question of the rights of the unborn child also must be addressed. This legislation does not address this issue. If you will remember Joseph Borowski failed to assert foetal rights because there was no longer an abortion law upon which to base a challenge. The proposed legislation does not address the rights of the unborn child. As we discuss the rights of the unborn, let us attempt to remove God or religion from the argument for a moment. If we remove this from the equation, the greatest thing still left to us is life.
Even the most radical secular person, the most hedonistic person in the world, must struggle with the fundamental questions of when life begins, when life ends, under what circumstances life can be ended and when life must be protected. What authority protects this life? Is it legal? Is it medical? Is it the church, or is it a combination of all these elements?
As a society, what protection do we extend to the lives of the helpless? What protection do we extend to the lives of the dying? What protection do we extend to the aged? Better still, what protection do we extend to the life of the unborn? We must look at life in all of its phases.
At the very least, even if some scientist or theologian states that in the early stages we cannot discern human life, the full potential of human life is indisputably there. That to my mind on its own should demand some respect and caution. At the very least, the potential for life exists and should unequivocally be respected.
I think all you have to do is visit your aged mother or grandmother and kiss her tenderly or give your spouse or your friend a warm hug, take a child's hand or let an infant grasp your finger and look into his eyes, all the time remembering that the only difference between the very oldest and the very youngest is only time. Their humanity has not changed.
November 23, 1989

This legislation is about life but fails to deal with life. This legislation is deficient. Providing the doctor will accept the reasons concerning the health of the female person, physical, mental or psychological, the doctor can terminate the pregnancy.
A doctor can terminate the pregnancy from the moment of conception to the moment prior to birth. That is what this bill implies. There are no guidelines; there are no rules. This government has evaded its responsibility and shifted the onus to the medical community.
As a layman I have great difficulty understanding the medical community. On the one hand we see premature births using every available means to sustain life, the doctors using every new advancement without questions of cost to save the life of a premature child. In the same instance, perhaps in the very same hospital, they are terminating the life of an unborn child. Moreover, to augment the deficiencies in this bill, there is no precise definition of the health reasons that would allow the termination of a pregnancy.
This legislation attempts to many two incompatible positions: that abortion should be illegal and punishable by imprisonment while at the same time available to all Canadian women based on the value judgment of the physician. There is no development of the concept of the unborn child, no requirement that the unborn child has rights which must be respected. This bill fails in this respect.
I listened with interest a couple of days ago to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development who both have diametrically opposed views, yet they both said they can support this legislation; another inconsistency from the very people who proposed Bill C-43.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Charlesbourg.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this morning to speak to Bill C-43. I will divide my speech into two sections. First, I will consider this legislation in my capacity as elected repre-
Govemment Orders
sentative of the residents of the vast riding of Charlesbourg and as a legislator here in the House of Commons, and second, as a woman and mother who believes that family and children are part of the fundamental values of our society.
When I look at the positions that have developed among the people of my riding, I realize they are not much different from those taken by Canadians as a whole. There are people who are stubbornly pro life and pro choice, but most of the representations I received contained a request that the federal government act responsibly and fill the legal vacuum created by the Supreme Court's judgment in January 1988.
In the spring of that year, those of us who were sitting in the House will remember the splits that developed among members when a motion proposing three legislative options was tabled in the House for debate. Although it was to be a free vote, and despite the fact that the debate was long and intense, it was impossible to reach a consensus on one of the three options or on any of the many amendments that were presented.
At the end of this debate, many members believed that new abortion legislation would no longer be necessary. They were soon forced to reconsider that position, however. This summer, day after day, Canadians were headed to what I would call a macabre expose of very personal problems on the front pages of our information media. This public airing causes people in my riding to reconsider their position and that the government should intervene to give this country legislation that would not be too permissive but that would nevertheless reflect Canadian realities in this respect.
Bill C-43 before the House today was not the result of a mere whim. It represents many hours of study, consultation and analysis to ensure that the proposed legislation reflects the benchmark established by the Supreme Court and based on the dictates of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Speaker, what strikes me in this Bill is that it recognises the health aspect. It also acknowledges that the decision is up to the woman and her doctor. Furthermore, the bill's objective is to balance the constitutional rights of women and society's interest in the protection of the foetus.

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
All these measures lead me to believe that the new legislation will pass the test of the Supreme Court, that a consensus will be reached in this House and that the bill will become Canada's new legislation in this area.
In a debate that is often emotionally charged, I must say that as a woman and a mother of four children, it is much harder to put one's personal convictions into perspective. Of course, I do not think abortion is necessarily the only solution. I believe that abortion should always be considered as a last resort and that women should have access to all the support they need to make such a difficult decision. It is easy to talk about abortion, whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, and it is easy to make decisions for others in hypothetical situations. One has to experience these situations, however, to realize that making this kind of decision is extremely difficult and that at this point, we need people who can give advice.
If I were to comment on the suggestions made by my colleague at National Health and Welfare, for instance, I think I would have to say that it is extremely important to ensure that all cases come before a doctor. I also think that we must have in the community people who have certain values and are able to provide advice, help and support.
Sometimes when I see demonstrations by people who are solidly pro-life, I wonder whether it would not be more useful to channel all that energy in to giving support to the people who need it.
I think that our society needs more compassion and more love, and that these fundamental values are essential if we are to make any kind of progress. People in these circumstances are often in financial difficulty, they need help and they should be given that help.
When I look at the bill, I think we have achieved a certain balance, and I must say that as a Member of the House of Commons and as a woman, I agree with the proposed measures and I intend to vote for Bill C-43 on second reading.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on this debate for a few minutes this morning because the debate taking place in the House over the last few days is perhaps one of the
most important in terms of human values that we will have in this Parliament for some time to come.
The preamble of the Constitution of this nation states that Canada was founded on principles recognizing the supremacy of God and the rule of the law. I accept those principles, but I further believe in the sanctity of human life, and I will work and fight to protect the rights of unborn children.
The law, however, that was intended to provide protection to the unborn was struck down on January 28, 1988, but interestingly enough not by a unanimous decision of the court. Since Parliament is the only body that can enact legislation to protect the lives of unborn children, we as elected members of this institution have a responsibility to bring forward a law that is workable and practical but at the same time protects unborn children.
The recent voter survey conducted by one of our colleagues in the other place reveals that 59 per cent of Canadians were not aware that there were one million abortions approved in Canada since 1969. Most of those were paid for by medicare. Yet 66 per cent of those surveyed believed that life begins at conception, while 73 per cent of those considered an unborn child at any stage a human being.
If we then consider the results of the survey, first that life begins at conception, that an unborn child at any stage is a human being, then of course the current status of this issue is nothing more than a wanton disregard for human life.
The medical legal protection of foetal life dates back to the Oath Of Hippocrates, 460 to 377 BC, which predates the birth of Christ. This oath states: "I will give neither a deadly drug to anyone who has asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortion remedy". I have to suggest to this House today that if this proposed legislation, Bill C-43, goes through, it flies directly in conflict with that Oath of Hippocrates.
The letters I have received on this issue are running 50 to 1 against abortion, but there are three in particular that stand out above all others. These are from doctors in my constituency. I want to read excerpts from them into the record today. I quote the first doctor:
I would encourage the defeat of this legislation in order to obtain
more effective legislation which will protect the rights of the unborn
child and ultimately the health of the mother. There is conclusive
November 23, 1989

evidence that the action of abortion has serious health consequences on the mother as well, and we need to give consideration to their wellbeing also.
Another letter states:
The government which fails to protect the lives of the people within its care, no matter how young or old, is a moral failure. The institution has been established to assume some degree of moral authority. The Canadian government demonstrates this in regard to many human rights by making laws against murder, assault, racism, et cetera, and by promoting equality for all Canadians. Is a request for the protection of life too much to ask of one's own government?
The third letter states:
I am writing to express my concern over the lack of protection in Canadian law for the life of unborn children. Abortion at any stage of pregnancy is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. To say that this is a woman's right to have control over her own body totally ignores the reality of fact that there are two or more lives involved in a pregnancy. A woman has legal rights over her own body but she (and all society) has a moral obligation to protect the helpless being in her womb.
At this time we are seeing the tragic spectacle of women -fighting through the courts to have her unborn child destroyed although she is now at the stage of pregnancy when the child, if born, could probably be saved.
Other abortions differ only in that the baby generally would have no chance of survival.
I urge you to fight in the House of Commons for a law giving total protection to the unborn.
These three doctors-two of them are family doctors from my constituency-who took the time to write on this issue before us today have said it all and probably much more eloquently than I did. Their depth of knowledge, their respect for human life and their moral principles must reflect the feelings of thousands of Canadians across this nation.
When we examine this bill before the House today, we find that it really creates no legally imposed delays or obstruction to obtaining a legal abortion other than the necessity to consult with other doctors. Of course, if the first doctor does not agree, you would go on to others, hoping that you would find one who would. In fact, this bill as it sits before this Parliament today is not far from being abortion on demand.
I fully realize that this bill is at second reading debate and that debate is on the principle of this bill. Therefore, in the parliamentary process it will go on to committee, to report stage and then on to third reading. I want to call on the government at this point either to bring forward amendments or to be receptive to amendments
Government Orders
of members of this House that will provide protection to unborn children.
As I indicated earlier, there are two or more lives involved in a pregnancy. While I clearly accept the exceptions to save the life of the mother, this bill does very little to save the lives of unborn children. At this point in the debate I believe that I would be remiss if I did not remind members of the House that it is stated in the preamble to our Constitution that we believe as Canadians in the supremacy of God.
The Bible itself mentions repeatedly-and it is on this Bible that we as members took our oaths-in Genesis 4:1, Jeremiah 1:5 and Job 33:4, children in the womb. A child conceived in the womb develops in the womb and is bom from the womb.
Therefore, if we accept the supremacy of God as stated in the preamble to the Constitution, then we in turn have an obligation to accept the teachings of the Bible. Consequently, we must also accept the fact that a foetus is a child or a human being and as such this nation has a duty to protect unborn children, to preserve their right to be bom and to enjoy the rights and obligations of human beings.
As those of us in this House realize, those of us who are older, life itself takes on a new meaning. I as a farmer never cease going out in the spring of the year to the fields and the pastures. Life is all about us. We see the birds, the animals, the new growth, the trees, the grass and the flowers. There is a sense of nearness to one's Creator, our Creator who said: "Suffer the little children to be brought unto me."
This debate is about human life. We are debating human life, the lives of unborn children, and I ask members of this House to consider the lives of these unborn children above all else.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm and to expand on remarks I made in this House on this topic last year.
After that court decision in the Morgentaler case I canvassed my constituents to seek their opinion as to three possible courses of action. The first would be to permit abortion only when the mother's life or physical health was in danger. The second would permit abortion without restriction. The third choice would permit abortion without restriction during the first 16 weeks and

Government Orders
thereafter, only where the mother's life or physical health was in danger.
Some 64 per cent chose option one; 9 per cent, option 2; and 24 per cent, option 3. The clear majority of the people in my riding believes that abortion should be allowed only if the mother's life or physical health is endangered. Indeed more women respondents than men supported that position.
It happens that I agree with the majority of my constituents, but even if I did not I believe that where there is a clear expression of opinion within a constituency and, in the absence of party discipline, a member ought to respect the wishes of his constituents.
As a Christian and one whose personal philosophy is respect for the basic worth of the individual, the sanctity of human life and the primacy of the family in our society, I believe that, in so far as is possible, every human life from conception should be given a chance.
This latest chapter in the abortion debate began in January of last year when the Supreme Court in the Morgantaler case struck down Section 251 of the Criminal Code on the grounds that the procedures deprived the pregnant woman of the right to security of her person under Section 7 of the Charter. Since that time Canada has been without a law.
The government attempted to fill the void in July 1988 with a compromise resolution based on the gestational approach. This proposal along with five others ranging all the way from classic pro-life to pro-choice was debated and voted on, all six questions were defeated in this House, and Canada was left without a law.
In March 1989 the Supreme Court rejected the Bo-rowski appeal because Section 251 had already been struck down. When the judges refused to rule on the rights of the unborn in the abstract, they indicated again that it was up to the legislature to make law.
Then came the Dodds and Daigle cases in the summer of 1989. The media spectacle accompanying these cases made it obvious that we could not continue to live in a state of lawlessness. It is up to the federal government to exercise leadership in filling this void.
The division of legislative powers under our Constitution is such that the only area under which the federal government has the appropriate authority is the criminal law. If this issue is not dealt with under the criminal law, then it must devolve to the provinces with the prospect of more chaos. Consequently, the government has brought forward this compromise, Bill C-43.
Last week the Supreme Court in the Daigle v. Tremblay case noted that the courts have consistently concluded that to enjoy rights the foetus must be bom alive. The court went on to address the matter of a potential father's rights and concluded "that no court in Quebec or elsewhere had ever accepted the argument that a father's interest in the foetus which he helped to create could support a right to veto a woman's decision in respect to the foetus she was carrying."
In short, the courts are saying that for a foetus to enjoy certain rights before birth or for a potential father to exercise any possible rights, there must be substantive legal reasons. There must be legislation-a decision taken by legislators based on social, political, economic, and moral choices.
Here we are again in November 1989 revisiting this issue, an issue which Parliament failed to resolve in six free votes in the summer of 1988, an issue which the courts have clearly indicated belongs to the people of Canada as expressed through their elected representatives, an issue on which Canadians in all walks of life are divided, an issue on which individual Canadians are sincerely and honestly at odds with each other.
It is important that all Canadians understand the procedure involved in dealing with Bill C-43 which the government has proposed as a compromise to end the current state of lawlessness. Bill C-43 makes it an offence to induce an abortion unless the procedure is done by or under the direction of a medical practitioner who is of the opinion that if the abortion were not induced the health or life of the female person would likely be threatened.
We are currently debating this bill at second reading. Under the rules of this House no substantive amendments as to the content of the bill are allowed at this stage. Members will vote yes or no. If they vote no, the bill fails and we revert to a legislative void. If the answer is yes, then the bill goes to a legislative committee composed of 15 members from all sides.
November 23, 1989

The legislative committee can hear witnesses, receive submissions, propose and vote on amendments, and then report the bill back to the House where it will be voted on. This is called report stage. At report stage members other than those on the legislative committee can also propose amendments. Obviously there will be amendments and there will be opportunities for members to vote on these amendments at report stage.
At the final stage, third reading, there will be further debate and an opportunity to vote for or against the finished product. Bill C-43 does recriminalize abortion. Bill C-43 does reject the gestational approach. Bill C-43 presents a health standard in determining grounds for ending unborn life. That is important because if the day ever comes when we as a society arbitrarily measure the value of life by its stages, we are on a very slippery slope.
Bill C-43 is opposed by pro-choice people who want no law at all. It is equally opposed by pro-life advocates who would restrict abortion further. Indeed one such pro-life advocate said to me that this bill is worthless, it would be better to have no law at all. With respect, I disagree. It is the pro-choice advocates who want no law. It is the New Democratic Party that wants unrestricted access to abortion. I cannot and will not support that position.
Therefore I intend to support this bill on second reading in order to get it to the legislative committee. This will allow for witnesses and for amendments and for the possibility of changes which might improve the bill. I believe it would be wrong to defeat the bill at this stage. To do so would not only deny the opportunity to work on the bill and to improve it but would also return the nation to a state of lawlessness.
Clearly we must have a law. We have laws to regulate the speed of vehicles and where they can park. Surely it is not too much to ask for a statement as to the validity of life itself, a law that reflects our beliefs, that a living being is involved and that life has value regardless of its stage of development. If it is easy and straightforward and acceptable to terminate life near its beginning, then is it any great leap forward towards ending life at other stages in circumstances where there may be inconve-
Govemment Orders
nience or cost? What comfort will there be for the elderly, the handicapped, the sick and, ultimately, for those who see things differently from those in power?
What is it that separates our society from past totalitarian regimes? Surely one characteristic is that of reverence and respect for life, whether at the beginning or near the end or indeed at any stage.
In closing I want to touch on a couple of peripheral issues. One relates to demographics. Declining birth rates and population trends indicate that Canada will not be able to sustain its present population, let alone increase it, without immigration. By the year 2015, if present trends continue, there will be almost as many Canadians 55 years of age and over as there will be in the 25 to 54 age group. This projection raises serious questions about our ability to pay for pensions or medicare or care for an aging population. Ironically, every statistic points to the need for a policy to promote and encourage a higher birth rate in this country.
I do applaud the establishment of a royal commission to examine the implications of the new technology available to human reproduction as well as the economic ramifications thereof. I would have preferred that the mandate be widened to encompass not just the host of questions surrounding reproductive technology but also those of euthanasia, suicide and all issues of intentional intervention in the human life cycle. The sanctity of human life runs through all of these issues.
Finally, I want to commend members on all sides for their participation in this debate. I have listened intently to their positions, some quite opposed to mine, but all sincere and all reflecting the profound challenge before us; to address an issue in which the views of virtually every individual Canadian differ in some degree, some irreconcilably.
Members of Parliament can do only that which is possible. Sometimes, indeed most of the time, we arrive at compromises. The result may not be what we would have preferred as individuals but it is the best that we can do collectively. Whatever happens, there must be every effort made to assist and improve adoptive processes. Whatever happens, we must encourage efforts toward greater understanding, heightened awareness and, most important of all, individual responsibility.

November 23, 1989
Government Orders


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this bill. The reason I am speaking against it is that while it appears to support the prochoice position that insists that the question of abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, in fact it is exactly the same position that was taken in the previous abortion legislation which was overturned by the Supreme Court. This legislation leaves the decision not up to the woman but up to the doctor. A woman may attempt to choose a doctor that supports her viewpoint on abortion but, in fact, the doctor has the final decision on whether that woman should carry a foetus to term or should have an abortion. That is precisely the question that the Supreme Court dealt with in Morgentaler and struck down.
Essentially it is a repeat of the legislation that we had a few years ago where the government set up in the Criminal Code a therapeutic abortion committee that was appointed by hospitals which performed abortions. What this legislation does is reduce the number of people on that committee from three to one. It still leaves the decision as to whether an abortion can be performed up to the doctor rather than the woman herself. That is the problem with this legislation and that is the reason why I intend to vote against it.
This legislation, in my view, is anachronistic and atavistic. It is based on the idea that the reproduction functions of a woman have a third party interest in them. In the past the husband or the father saw the woman as a chattel, as a piece of personal property. Our laws considered a woman to be a chattel of her husband or father. In a modem pluralistic society which recognizes the rights of all individuals, this type of primitive, atavistic belief simply cannot prevail and I am surprised that it is being restated in this legislation.
The decision with respect to abortion should be a decision solely of the woman in consultation with any doctor, medical person or other authority that she chooses to consult. I must reiterate that the decision itself should remain with the woman involved and not with the doctor.
As I said, there was a time not long ago when we considered in our legislation and in our society that women where the chattels of their fathers until such
time as they became the chattels of their husbands. It has only been within the last seven decades that women have had a right to vote in this country, to exercise the same right in politics that males in our society have exercised for hundreds of years. Women have only had the right to vote for the past seven decades.
It has only been within the past four or five decades that women have been considered persons with respect to their rights before the law. Our society has not advanced very far from a very primitive view of women, and the legislation that we are debating today is actually a return to that primitive view of women as chattels of their husbands or their fathers. But there is a bit of a difference in this legislation in that the government appears to be nationalizing the interest that the husband or the father had in his chattel and making it an interest of the state in the reproductive functions of women. I do not believe that is a right, proper and democratic thing to do in a society such as ours.
The decision to proceed with an abortion, as other speakers have indicated, is not an easy decision for anyone to make. I can recall when in my family we were looking forward with hope and expectation to the birth of our children. As our children go into high school and university and begin to select a career we continue to look with hope and expectation upon their prospects for the future. It is very enjoyable for parents to be able to do that. But that is not a privilege that all parents in our society enjoy.
To some parents, and especially single parents who are living in poverty or living in difficult circumstances, the possibility of having another child is looked upon with horror. In fact, it is an expectation which causes the family to lose hope for the future and in some cases it is just considered another mouth to feed in a poor family that has difficulty feeding the children they already have. It is an extremely difficult prospect for some of those families to face. Those families feel that in our society they have absolutely no alternative.
The American Medical Association polled all of its members a few years ago and asked what the major medical problems faced by different groups of their patients. The major medical problem facing teenage girls was pregnancy and the second was acne.
November 23, 1989

So it is a serious problem facing children in both Canada and the United States. When we consider that the major concern of teenage girls who go to physicians is pregnancy and the second one is acne, we are dealing with a serious difficulty in this country. When a teenage girl becomes pregnant she does not look on that with the same hope, expectation and excitement with which the rest of us look upon that prospect, she looks at it as something that is going to interfere with her schooling, destroy her career and, in fact, destroy her life as she chooses to live it. It is an extremely difficult prospect for that teenage girl to face.
Doctors are not necessarily all that sympathetic. They may adopt a very narrow view of what constitutes psychological, mental and physical health. That teenage girl will be dependent on the doctor to make a decision as to whether her career is going to be destroyed, whether her school is going to be interrupted, or if she is going to be facing a career which involves poverty, low wage levels and a dead end. So it is a serious problem.
But, in spite of that, no one faces the prospect of having an abortion with anything but extreme concern. As I said, most of us in this room look forward to having children with hope, expectation and excitement, but many people in Canada see it as a terrible prospect which will destroy their future. They look upon abortion in the same way because, having the understanding that the process to create a human life has already been put into effect, no one likes to terminate it, even with all of the terror with which it is anticipated.
This legislation does nothing to help people address that prospect. It does nothing other than give the potential to recriminalize abortion and make the abortion extremely difficult for the women who have to face that prospect.
I find that strange because there are many things that this government could do in order to make abortion the less desirable choice. This is the government that has cut back on assistance to family planning organizations in Canada. This government refuses to fund the availability of birth control information and birth control apparatus to people across Canada.
Government Orders
I think there are three ways that we could reduce abortions in Canada without recriminalizing it. One is to make birth control information and apparatus widely and freely available so that abortion is not an option to be considered. The second is to make access to abortion available to everyone in Canada in the event that that birth control apparatus fails. The third and most important is for this government to reverse its policies and to start supporting families financially and socially so that the prospect of raising children in Canada is not a horrible one of poverty and abuse but one in which you can raise children free of poverty in happy surroundings and with a prospect of a great future. That should be the object of the government's policy to reduce abortions in this country.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on Bill C-43. Abortion is a very difficult issue. Over the last year I have received numerous communications from my constituents. Abortion was raised by many people during the last election campaign as I travelled throughout the riding knocking on doors to encourage people to consider electing me as their member of Parliament. During that process I heard from those who represented a very solid pro-life position. I heard from those who represented a very solid prochoice position. I also heard from those who fell somewhere in between. Consistently I was asked my views on abortion and I was very clear in my position to my constituents on several points. I said that I felt that abortion should not be available on demand and that abortion should not be available simply at the call of an individual, but that I would accept that abortion should be available for specialized circumstances and I had some examples of that.
That answer satisfied neither the pro-life people nor the pro-choice people, but that was my personal feeling. I did say to my constituents that this bill would be a free vote in the House of Commons, as was promised by the Conservative Party, and that I would give my constituents ample opportunity to reflect and to advise me of their wishes as to how I should vote on this issue. I did say to them that I would not necessarily be bound by every specific representation because you can appreciate that if you get 160,000 representations you cannot satisfy them all.
I made the point of meeting with as many people in my constituency as possible and they included the Knights of Columbus in Whitby, various pro-choice people, organizations from Whitby and Ajax, various right-to-life groups from Whitby, Ajax and Pickering and individual

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
citizens. I have an open-door policy in my constituency and if a resident wants to meet with their MP I am available and I will discuss the issues. I do not necessarily need to know in advance what they want to talk about. I had people through my offices who told me in advance that they wanted to discuss abortion and others who simply made appointments and we discussed it while they were there.
I have received many submissions from my constituents on this issue. I did promise my constituents that I would canvass them and learn what they had to say as a group on this particular issue. This I did and I would like to share with you some of the things I learned from them.
In a householder that I sent out early September I asked my constituents many questions on the issue of abortion. They responded with almost 3,300 responses. In fact it was 3,299 at the point when this particular summary was prepared and I think it is probably representative. I have received some additional responses since I prepared these numbers but clearly my constituents have an opinion on the issue of abortion and I would like to share that with members here today and maybe in this way you can appreciate my position on this.
I asked about 17 questions on abortion. The first question I asked was whether the government should pass a law dealing with the issue of abortion. Without asking them to say whether they were for or against or anything else, I asked whey they wanted the government to act on this issue. Eighty-seven per cent of the respondents said yes, and I am happy to say that the government is in fact doing that.
The second question was whether the government should ban abortion outright. The question was very clear, very specific. It said that under no circumstances would an abortion be allowed. My constituents again responded; 19.7 per cent said yes. Of course there is a corollary to that question and that is whether we should legalize abortion on demand for any reason at any time. Thirty-two per cent said yes.
So there you have the view of my constituents. Half of them have said that it is either yes or no completely. The
other half came in with the answers to the balance of the questions.
Because I felt that my constituents should have the opportunity, as I did, to feel that maybe there are some circumstances where an abortion should be available to the individual, I asked a number of questions on that side.
For example, I asked whether my constituents believed that abortion should be available to a victim of rape. Four times as many said yes as said no. Did my constituents believe that abortion should be available to a victim of incest? Four times as many said yes as said no. Should abortion be available when the health of the mother is involved? Sixteen times as many said yes as said no. Should abortion be available if there was proven circumstances that there was a deformity with the foetus? Three times as many said yes as said no.
I also asked various questions relating to the gestational approach because in September, without knowing what the legislation was going to say, it was thought that maybe the legislation would allow abortion based on a gestational approach. I asked my constituents whether abortion should be available in the first eight weeks without question. Eighteen per cent said no, 14 per cent said yes. As to whether it should be available in the first 12 weeks it was 20 per cent no versus 13 per cent yes. At 16 weeks it was 22 per cent no, 9 per cent yes. At 20 weeks it was 24 per cent no. It went all the way up to 28 weeks and it got to 25 per cent no.
Very clearly, as my constituents have indicated by this response, they were not interested in a gestational approach and I note that the bill does not have that. Of course I was not aware that it was not going to be in the bill, but my constituents have clearly indicated to me they did not want me to support a bill that included a gestational approach.
I also asked my constituents whether both parents have the right to input on the decision on an abortion. I do have responses from both males and by females to my survey. I can tell you that they consistently agreed all the way through until I came to this question. More men thought they should have input in the decision of
November 23, 1989

abortion, that both parents should be involved, than did the women. The women very clearly said that it was not the decision of both parents. Although the men felt clearly that it was not both parents' decision, they did feel a little more strongly on this issue.
Family finances was discussed. I asked whether abortion should be available for family finances if there was a problem in that area. Again my constituents said no. I asked whether abortion should be available if the mother was mentally handicapped. The answer was clearly yes.
There was a question about the age of the mother, whether abortion should be available because of the age of the mother. I left the interpretation of that question to the view of the respondent. Clearly they said no, that should not influence the availability of abortion.
Very clearly my constituents have put some rules in place. They have suggested to me that I ought to support some legislation. I can only conclude that this bill in fact does what my constituents have asked me to do. I will be supporting this legislation because I think it goes a long way towards what my constituents have indicated to me very clearly. Personally I might prefer a little more tightness in the bill but I will be supporting this bill because that is what my constituents have indicated they want.
I thank you for the opportunity to present to you the views of my constituents and my personal view on why I will be supporting this legislation.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, ten minutes is a very short time to deal with a very complex and difficult question, so I will try to be brief.
I intend to vote in favour of the motion that Bill C-43 be read a second time. I shall do so not because I like this bill in its present form, but because I believe that Canadians abhor the current legislative vacuum. They want legislation that will protect the unborn adequately. They want a law based on the principle that abortion is socially and morally unacceptable as a birth control device.
The bill now before the House is deeply flawed. It is vague and ambiguous in many crucial respects, however the bill gives us a starting point. It can be amended in committee. If we refused even to give this bill second
Government Orders
reading and to send it to a committee, as parliamentarians we may have lost an important opportunity to fill this legislative vacuum. If we throw out this law now, we may be for a long time without a law. So I will vote to allow this bill to go forward to the committee stage. There it can be clarified, strengthened and improved.
I urge the Minister of Justice to give the legislative committee that will consider Bill C-43 ample time to hear expert testimony, to obtain clarification of various provisions and to formulate amendments to improve the bill. I would urge too that the government permit ample time for members on all sides of the House and all sides of this debate to express themselves in this debate and, most importantly, that contrary to common legislative strategy we be given notice well in advance of the timetable for this legislation. Let us not deal with this as a partisan matter.
There will be much for the legislative committee to do. The bill is short but there is much in it that requires clarification. Perhaps the provision subject to the widest scope for interpretation is the portion of subsection (1) of revised Section 287 that makes it not a crime for a medical practitioner to induce an abortion if, in his or her opinion, the abortion were not induced, the health or life of the female person would be likely to be threatened.
Subsection (2) proposes for greater certainty that health means physical, mental and psychological health. Also, it defines opinion to be an opinion formed using the generally accepted standards of the medical profession.
In the background information accompanying this bill we are informed by the government that based on majority reasons for judgment in the Morgentaler case, permitting an abortion if the psychological health of the woman is threatened is constitutionally required.
We are also informed in the background information that while the bill does not specifically refer to eugenics, rape, incest, socio-economic welfare, or other reasons for seeking an abortion, these factors could be included in the determination of health if their effect was to threaten a woman's health.
These explanatory notes do not provide much guidance to medical practitioners, to women seeking an abortion, or to Canadians generally as to what circum-

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
stances will allow a doctor to induce an abortion. They raise as many questions as they answer.
There are inherent risks and stresses in every pregnancy. However, modem medicine combined with the facilities available in most Canadian hospitals means that these risks and stresses can be controlled to such a degree that few Canadian women need fear lasting damage to their physical or even psychological well-being as a result of carrying a baby to term.
Indeed, as far as psychological health is concerned, there is evidence that an abortion may cause long-term negative effects. Should we expect qualified medical practitioners to deny virtually all requests for abortions under this bill if it becomes law? Is that the purpose of the bill? If a woman in robust health receives an abortion by a qualified medical practitioner under this law, should the casual observer conclude that section 287 of the Criminal Code has been violated? Is that what the government intends? Would it be the responsibility of such a casual observer to bring such a practitioner to justice for violating the Criminal Code? Just how would this be done?
Alternatively, is the provision relating to health to be interpreted as meaning that if a woman merely claims that her health will be threatened in some way by carrying the baby to term, a medical practitioner may agree to the abortion provided that performing the abortion would not, in his or her opinion, endanger her health or life?
Setting aside the difficult case of eugenics, rape and incest the claim might be that due to her "socio-economic circumstances" her health, physical, mental or psychological may be threatened, in which case the medical practitioner will be required to determine whether that was merely an excuse or a legitimate claim.
The explanatory notes provided by the government suggest that socio-economic circumstances would qualify as grounds for abortion if they threatened a woman's health. There are those who argue that socio-economic circumstances on their own would be sufficient justification for an abortion. If the government agrees with that view and intends that socio-economic circumstances be grounds for an abortion, this should be clearly specified in the bill as an additional reason for permitting an
abortion. Obviously, if that is to be the effect of the bill, I shall vote that this bill not pass this House.
I am not insensitive to the socio-economic difficulties which many women, in particular single mothers, face. These difficulties call for positive action on the part of governments. They call for progressive day care legislation to enable women to participate in the workforce without compromising the care they give to their children. They require more determined enforcement of legislation regarding child support so that fathers will contribute their share to the financial needs of children. They require education on family planning. Abortion is not a remedy. It is not a solution. This bill does not address these difficulties.
What is required is far more than simply a law to put abortion back into the Criminal Code. What is required is a comprehensive policy designed to bring down the number of abortions, whether legal or illegal, in Canada. This goal would be sought by education, by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, by support for adoption, by progressive workplaces with pay equity and day care programs that recognize the contribution of childbearing women, and abortion legislation is a necessary part of that program.
If we were at third reading stage, I would vote against this bill, but this is only second reading stage. I abhor the legal vacuum which has persisted in this country for almost two years. We must make an honest effort to get a good law on the statute books. It may be possible to amend this defective bill at the committee stage between second and third reading. For example, it may be possible to strike out the vague, imprecise reference to the health of the pregnant woman. I hope so, because if the defects of the bill are not corrected by the committee to which it is sent, I shall vote against the bill at third reading.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker,
I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-43, an Act respecting abortion, since I am sure you will agree this is a very important and very delicate subject for Canadians and for the people in the riding of Terrebonne, which has not escaped the heat of this debate.
As you know, there has been a great deal of debate and a lot of controversy about this very important matter, which on some occasions, proved to be very divisive. All this makes for an extremely delicate and, above all,
November 23, 1989

controversial issue, depending on whether one is pro-life or pro-choice.
Mr. Speaker, despite ideological differences, recent events and especially what happened last summer have shown that as legislators we must act responsibly, show leadership and play our role as elected representatives in this House.
How do we define that role, Mr. Speaker? I think it was our duty was to introduce a bill that, while considering two main realities, would provide a legal framework that respects the individual rights and freedoms recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and also considers Canadian society's interest in protecting the foetus.
Mr. Speaker, this balance is not easy to achieve. However, as the Supreme Court said in the Morgentaler decision, the rights of one party should not necessarily be exercised to the detriment of the other party. You will agree this leaves us with very little room to manoeuvre. If we really want legislation that is constitutionally acceptable, in other words, that passes the test of a legal challenge before the Supreme Court, I believe it is imperative to respect this balance and, above all, to resist the temptation to give it a pro-life or pro-choice image, which would have the effect of destroying this delicate balance.
Bill C-43 makes abortion a medical decision that a woman and a doctor make, based on health reasons, health being defined as physical, mental and psychological health.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this bill recognizes that only the woman will make the decision to terminate her pregnancy, a decision which clearly is not easy for a woman to make. It is a very difficult decision and as for any medical procedure, this decision will be subject to a physician's diagnosis, as is now the case anyway, Mr. Speaker. Someone asking for a surgical operation or medical treatment must submit to a doctor's diagnosis.
The bill also states that abortion is a medical procedure which must be performed by a qualified medical practitioner. Personally, I am satisfied with that because it will criminalize illegal abortions, those which are performed outside the legal framework, and this can be considered protection for women.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, the foetus is also protected because the decision must be based on health reasons, not frivolous reasons or any reason at all, but on health reasons.
This new legislation will be part of the Criminal Code. This raises the whole issue of "recriminalizing" abortion. Certainly it would have been preferable not to do that, but what credibility would a law have without penalties for those who break it, in a country where Parliament can regulate abortion at the national level only through the Criminal Code! Let us make it clear that abortion is not being made a crime to the detriment or on the backs of women; rather, physicians will have to comply with the law.
In my opinion, it would have been preferable not to legislate in this area, but Canadian society does not see it this way and we are here to represent all the Canadian people.
This bill is not intended to, and will not, change the personal opinions of one and all, nor will it change deep convictions, people's moral convictions, whether for or against abortion.
The day after this law takes effect, Mr. Speaker, those who are deeply pro-life will remain pro-life and those who are deeply pro-choice will remain pro-choice. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I would be completely opposed to a law that would impose one set of moral values instead of another or to the detriment of another. Who am I, Mr. Speaker, to say that a woman who wants her rights respected is wrong? Or that someone who attaches very great value to the life of the foetus is not right?
When I was elected to Parliament, Mr. Speaker, it was not to become unduly involved in the personal moral values of my constituents and people in general. It was certainly not to impose anything on anybody in that regard, especially not my own point of view.
This issue touches on the deepest moral convictions of each and every one of us and I am not here to play the role of a religious leader, which I would refuse to do in any case. My role as a member of a legislative body is to put in place a balanced legislative framework which will avoid unnecessary suffering and I intend to play this role fully, Mr. Speaker.
I must tell those who would be tempted to use legislation to reduce the number of abortions in Canada and to use it restrictively to limit access to abortion that they are wrong. Never will we achieve that result with a law on abortion. All we need do is implement a coherent

Government Orders
family policy, enhance the role of mother and father, urge Canadians to acknowledge that the birth of a child has tremendous social value, and then I am sure that fewer women will opt for the ultimate resort-abortion.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, restrictive legislation would amount to nothing more than a temporary way out. Just as the old act was thrown out by the court, a more restrictive piece of legislation would probably suffer the same fate for the same reasons. So it is imperative that we understand that any abortion which might upset the balance of the Bill would be utterly unacceptable. People must be told that any amendment designed to prevent a woman from securing an abortion would fly in the face of her rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We would have the impression that the law is in the statute books, but the minute it would be challenged before the Supreme Court, it too would be invalidated, just as the preceding legislation was.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must confess that the abortion issue was a thorn in my side during the last election campaign, and I have found it very difficult to deal with this matter ever since I was first elected to this House. Why? In all likelihood because when I considered the question I was biased by my personal convictions. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have grown to appreciate the fact that my role here, as I said before, is not to impose any concept or moral value on anybody. Our role is to see things just as they are within the context of the Canadian people and to set up a legal structure which can be accepted and which will do away with the kind of difficult and dramatic situation women have to live through, as we saw last summer.
I received a lot of comments, advice and mail from my constituents on the subject of abortion. However complex the whole issue may be, I feel that the Bill under consideration strikes a proper balance and as Member for the riding of Terrebonne, Mr. Speaker, I intend to give this measure my full support.


Shirley Maheu: As
a Member of this House who is both a woman and the mother of four children, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is important for me to deal with this new abortion bill which, by failing to take a positive stand in an effort to
please everybody, settles nothing and creates a new problem.
Abortion was liberalized in January 1988, when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that under the Criminal Code, anybody who compels a woman to carry a foetus to term is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to legal proceedings. In spite of this decision, women are still faced with the same difficulties when they try to obtain adequate care for the purpose of terminating their pregnancies. The whole approach varies from one province to the next. In some regions, the woman who manages to secure the assistance of a physician for this purpose is considered something of a phenomenon.
In my view, it is clear that in an ideal society with its long term assistance and support services and its really efficient educative and preventive programs an abortion policy would no longer be required. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Far from it! We are still very much afraid of what the neighbours will think, we live under constant social pressure, and we are concerned with the individual freedom to make a difficult choice and to live with it. If we really want to encourage women to carry their pregnancy to term, we can do it in a practical way. We can make sure that they have easy access to adequate, abundant and affordable day care services, that they are entitled to maternity leave and decent subsidized housing, that they get legal assistance in cases of incest and family violence and that they are assured of automatic alimony payments. In short, Mr. Speaker, we should provide women with the support they need to care for their children, especially in a way which is equitable for all.

Unfortunately, the bill presented by the government does not even attempt to address the issue of alternative services. Instead of threatening women and their doctors with the heavy hand of the law, the government should have instituted programs that would provide women with real alternatives. Support systems must be in place to assist women who chose not to have abortions. The government must improve the state of child care in this country. It must address the issues of teenage pregnancy, and it must realize the gamut of complex social, religious and economic influences which play an important role in a woman's decision. It must address the inherent discrimination in this legislation that biases the availability
November 23, 1989

Government Orders
of abortion services to those women who have both the time and the money to find them.

If we really want to improve the current situation, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is vital that men should be made fully conscious of their sexual activities and the consequences of their actions. Parents should teach their boys to take the necessary precautions not to make girls pregnant if they do not want to be responsible for their abortions. They should teach their children generally that they must live with the consequences of their actions and choices. They will be able to achieve this goal through communication and dialogue before any harm is done. Support services simply do not exist.
In our society, Mr. Speaker, it is important that all children receive adequate sex education, and have access to and use of good birth control methods. The media also have a role to play to eliminate taboos and the obsessive fear that, by talking about prevention and encouraging people to use condoms, birth-control pills or other means of contraception, we are inciting young people to have sex prematurely. I think we must stop burying our heads in the sand or turning the other way if we want to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Any woman who has gone through an abortion can tell you that it is a difficult choice to make, a major reassessment and a permanent scar in your life. Whatever the motive behind the decision, since it is the woman who is ultimately responsible for having her pregnancy terminated and who must live with the consequences, it is important that she receive adequate care.

When a woman discovers that she is carrying an unplanned child she must face the decision herself as to what course of action she will take. If she is young, poor and has few employment opportunities, she must decide whether she wants to bring a new bom child into that situation. She must decide whether to bring a child into a cycle of poverty and deprivation, or to delay parenthood until she will be able to provide a proper environment for herself and her children. Because of the lack of support structures within this legislation there is less motivation for a woman to keep or to take her pregnancy to term.
The fact that this government has backed down on its commitment to the establishment of a national child care program does nothing to discourage the option of abortion. If day care services were accessible to all Canadian mothers, then the ability to continue working and to provide for a family would weigh the question of abortion in favour of carrying the pregnancy to term. Without such services, can our society expect a woman to automatically give up her right to choose?
The rolling back of transfer payments to the provinces for education and health care services will further limit the accessibility of abortion services if needed. Once again, poor women will be forced to use inadequate and, at times, dangerous methods because they are unable to pay for proper medical services because of the lack of provincial funding or lack of access.
It is evident that the bill before us puts a burden on doctors in Canada. If doctors become liable for a criminal act, many may simply not want to take the risk of prosecution. Already, the president of the Alberta Medical Association has warned that doctors in that province would stop performing abortions, perhaps even where necessary, in order to avoid criminal prosecution under the proposed law. This is further evidence that this bill could eliminate those services in certain areas of our country.
If we accept the proposed legislation as is then the decision as to whether a woman should have an abortion should be made between her and her doctor and not by lawyers, judges or the Government of Canada. Physicians might not want to endure the possibility of harassing techniques from various groups and could eventually not offer the services rather than risk the chance of criminal sanctions. In the end, the women of Canada are the ones who will suffer.

Mr. Speaker, a bill such as this one makes the physician responsible for the decision. Many will desist to avoid social pressure and the risk of being sued. Let us not open the door to illegal abortions which will carry consequences such as infertility, shame, rejection and a

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
return to the past in a society trying to look forward to the 21st century.

I will probably vote for this bill at second reading, but unless there are amendments there is no way that I could support it on third reading.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, when I first came here in 1984, I never thought I would have to legislate on the life or death of an unborn being. I am the father of three children, and neither my wife nor I would ever have thought that we would have to make a decision on abortion, and had we been faced with that choice, it would have really been traumatic to think that one of our children would not have an opportunity to be bom.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, an abortion is a criminal act, because I view abortion as a band-aid solution. Abortion will not solve the problem in our society. Before legislating on such an important matter, we should first ask ourselves: what causes women to seek an abortion? Why do they have to do such a thing to free themselves of an unwanted pregnancy or birth.
I think we should look at family problems, and in that respect my view is that governments have not done enough to help divorced mothers, single mothers, widows who some day are faced with a pregnancy that is unwanted for lack not necessarily of love but rather money.
In that respect, Mr. Speaker, nobody up till now has thought of introducing support projects or programs helping them bring their pregnancy to term and then raise their children until such time as they can look after themselves.
This is a societal not a legislative problem, it is not a government problem. It is my view that, through the legislation now before us-after the Daigle-Tremblay saga which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, dealt with a lovers' problem by making society, or Canadians pay- this government said there was a legislative vacuum and that vacuum had to be filled. It tabled Bill C-43, which was a way of sitting on the fence.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill is pro-life with pro-choice contents. If you look at it closely you will realize immediately that it criminalizes the act and yet does not provide sufficient protection for the child to be bom, the foetus. I am convinced that we will never build a healthy and strong society if we destroy embryos. We simply cannot build something unless we begin somewhere.
Mr. Speaker, some people may suggest that the embryo or the foetus is not a living being, but keep in mind that if it is not a living being, if it is not a human being who will live, it is at least the beginning of a human being who will go on to live. It will become a human being after the gestation period. By denying that it can become a human being we deny as well that there is a beginning. If we do not acknowledge the beginning, we will destroy it. As a society, as individuals, Mr. Speaker, can we allow ourselves to destroy the beginning?
The second part of the Bill under consideration does not acknowledge or protect that, and this is why we in the House find it so difficult to state unequivocally whether we are for or against the Bill. Because on either side of the issue it answers a question we are asking. Well, I ask myself that question. Criminalizing the act because killing an unborn child has to be as close as you can get to a criminal deed, I agree and I can live with that, but the one thing I cannot live with, Mr. Speaker, is our failure to give full protection to the unborn child.
Still I must say that the bill is a step in the right direction. Perhaps it will pave the way for other laws, and perhaps we may be able to redress the situation by moving amendments once the bill reaches the committee stage.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I have not used up all my allotted time before the lunch hour. May I have a few minutes after lunch to conclude my remarks?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mitges):: The hon. member will have three minutes left to complete his speech when we return.
It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.
November 23, 1989



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. John MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the serious subject of abortion and a piece of legislation that is before us in the House. I want it recorded that I do not stand for Bill C-43, but I will not stand against it at second reading. As I have told my constituents, I am most uncomfortable with this bill because I cannot condone the act of abortion. I cannot accept the taking of an innocent unborn.
Although C-43 does not sit well with me, I believe strongly that we in this place are obligated not to reject this bill at the outset but consider and debate its contents. We owe it to our public who sent us here and to the future generations to work diligently over the next few months on this bill, to work together as Canadians and to arrive at a position that allows eveiy one of us to sleep at night.
Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Parish of New Liskeard have asked me: "Please stand for and vote for the strictest law regarding abortion. Please make sure there are no undefined terms in it which would provide loopholes." To them, and to my constituents, I understand and I intend to do just that.


NAMIBIA
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, with the completion of its first free elections, Namibia is proceeding along the path to independence.
Unfortunately, independence carries with it a financial cost. Namibia must find international support to make up for the withdrawal of budgetary support from south Africa.
Canada's long-time commitment to the well-being of Namibia cannot be abandoned now. With this government's slashing of foreign aid budgets, CIDA has been forced to cut proposed aid to Namibia by 50 per cent.
I call on the government to put its money where its mouth is, restore full funding assistance and a major package of bilateral aid to Namibia, and ensure through its position on the Security Council that Walvis Bay, Namibia's only deep water port, is removed from South African to Namibian control. Last, we must establish a high commission in Namibia or, minimally, an aid commission to Namibia.
Namibia's emergence is a forerunner of future developments in South Africa. The progress of this new nation will be watched intensely by all forces involved in southern Africa. It must not be allowed to fail.


EL SALVADOR
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the FMLN in El Salvador have today called for a cease-fire in the war. Their recent dramatic escalation of that war was in response to increased government repression and violence.
The UN Commission on Human Rights in its report on El Salvador noted a dramatic increase in the number of human rights violations since the coming to power of the Arena government of President Cristiani.
The FMLN has appealed for a UN monitored ceasefire. A lasting peace is possible through sincere negotiations between the Salvadoran government and the FMLN and a reversal of current U.S. policy. Only when the United States abandons its cold war posture in the region will the people of Central America be able to exercise their sovereign right to determine their own destiny.
I once again appeal to our government to impress upon the United States that the world is changing and that the U.S. military interference in Central America is unacceptable.


TRIBUTE TO JEAN-CLAUDE MALEPART
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, my colleagues on both sides of the House paid a final tribute to my friend Jean-Claude Malepart. Since I

November 23, 1989
was in Montreal with his family, I could not pay tribute to him in this House.

Pierre Trudeau once said when MPs are 50 yards from Parliament Hill, they are no longer honourable members, they are just nobodies. Well, Trudeau would have been wrong again if he had said that about Jean Claude Malepart.

Mr. Speaker, more than 4,000 people went to pay their respects one last time over the weekend in Montreal and more than 2,000 people gathered in St. Anselm's Church to honour him in a simple and moving ceremony.
His last speech on Meech Lake in this House attracted much attention. It is no doubt what Jean-Claude Malepart leaves to all Canadians. He saw his death coming, knew that he would die and gave us his parting words. Jean-Claude Malepart, a worker for ordinary people, the Maurice Richard of politics, is now in his final resting place but lives in the hearts of many.
Mr. Speaker, cancer knocked him out, but like a great heavyweight, he continued to fight while going down. We have lost a giant defender of the people, a man with a great heart, and we will miss him for a long time.
Jean-Claude, your friend who pumps gas salutes you.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, each week when I return home to my riding, I am faced with yet another example of how detrimental the GST will be to the constituents of Malpeque.
Most recently, the reality of the proposed 9 per cent tax has hit our figure skating clubs and minor hockey clubs. These organizations represent a major part of community life in my district and indeed across Canada.
The importance of sport in young people's lives cannot be denied. Through the minor hockey clubs and the skating clubs, they experience the rewards of dedication, the importance of good sportsmanship and the benefits of physical activity.
The GST proposes to tax areas of sports programs which were previously untaxed: coaching fees, facilities, test fees, membership fees and travel costs. The effect of the GST on these items will create a financial burden that many young people and their families simply cannot afford.
On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and more particularly my Liberal colleagues in the House of Commons, I urge this government to keep the community spirit alive in Canada by promoting sport for youth instead of prohibiting participation with the GST.


ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, every day more species of plants and animals come in danger of extinction, largely the impact of humans on nature.
One species, the African elephant, is now receiving the protection it needs. Commercial trade in ivory has been banned by Canada and most other nations under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species. Last Friday hundreds of Canadians who care about this attended a meeting at the University of Toronto organized by Zoocheck Canada. They heard Doctor Richard Leakey, Ian and Oria Douglas-Hamilton and others speak about the plight of Africa's elephants. Over $120,000 was raised for the Kenya Wild Elephant Fund.
Concern for endangered species here in Canada and around the world measures how attentive we humans are to others with whom we share this planet and upon whom we depend for our own life and well-being.


LEBANON
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Lebanese President was killed in a bombing incident. His death came not only as a shock but as a severe disappointment to the many who saw him as Lebanon's hope for peace. Around the world religious ceremonies were held to mourn this great loss.
November 23, 1989



I hope that President Mouawad's death will not lead to further bloodshed, but instead that it will bring together the citizens of that country as they mourn the death of a leader eager to restore peace to Lebanon.

It is ironic that a man so driven toward restoring peace was killed by such a brutal act of terrorism. After only 17 days in office, President Muawad was already carving out a path that could have led to peace in Lebanon. I am confident that the people of Lebanon will overcome this tragedy and hope they will follow in the late president's footsteps by continuing his efforts toward achieving a sovereign, independent, just and fair Lebanon.


HOUSING
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, an article by journalist Jean-Denis Girouard that appeared in today's Journal de Montreal is entitled: "Housing: Quebec does not have its fair share".
Quebec is the only province that has put in place a joint cost-sharing renovation program with the federal government.
The city of Montreal's contribution was practically equal to that of Quebec and of the federal government, and over half the 6,490 renovated units were in rooming houses for the poor.
Mr. Speaker, in this situation, the cut in the rental RRAP is completely inappropriate given not only the costs but also the urgent needs of people in Quebec and Montreal, and I would ask the Minister of State (Housing) to reintroduce this program as soon as possible for the sake of Quebec's poor.


ABORTION
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, there are those in this House and outside it who would paint the abortion issue as simply a woman's issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. It most definitely is a woman's issue in so far as it is women who are most
profoundly, indeed exclusively affected. It is a woman's issue in so far as it is women's fundamental constitutional right to security of the person that those who would deny women access to abortion propose to violate.
For this very reason, abortion is an issue of human rights that far outstrips mere gender. And it is for this veiy reason that there appears in today's The Globe and Mail an advertisement from a group called Men for Women's Choice. Endorsed by over 600 men named in the advertisement, it makes the simple and utterly fundamental statement that "no government should be able to force a woman to bear a child against her will".
These men, and the millions of other men across Canada who support and share their views, are a welcome contingent in the struggle for freedom of choice on abortion in Canada.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the New Brunswick economy has benefited greatly since this government came to power in 1984. Since 1984, over 38,000 new jobs have been created in New Brunswick alone while the number of people living below the poverty line has fallen by 26,000 over the same period.
The unemployment rate in New Brunswick has fallen from 16.3 per cent to 12.3 per cent since September 1984. Housing starts for the first five months of 1989 are up by 104 per cent from the same period in 1984. Exports increased by over one-third in 1988 as compared to 1984.
I know those opposite find it veiy difficult to listen to these very impressive figures, but I am sure the opposition members realize that we are doing a good job and will continue to do a good job in Atlantic Canada and in my home province of New Brunswick.


NATIVE PEOPLES
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of this House a disturbing incident which casts in a very poor light this government's dedication to the cause of native rights and dignity in Canada.

A slide presentation on the Fathers of Confederation prepared by Parks Canada and shown to visitors to Province House in Prince Edward Island contains a reference to Canada's native peoples as heathens and infidels.
It is true that this remark is part of a contemporary quote, however the context is not made clear to viewers, who receive the impression that this is how our society regards native people. As well, the rich contribution made to our nation by Canada's original inhabitants is neglected in the presentation.
Prince Edward Islanders are shocked at the callousness and arrogance of the presentation and disturbed by the government's apparent disregard for the dignity of native people. I call upon the government to take appropriate action regarding this matter and promise all Canadians that such an incident will not be repeated.


OPPOSITION PARTIES
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, what is the difference between the Liberal party and the NDP? In a September 1989 speech to the Canadian Association for Securities and Studies Conference, the hon. Liberal from York Centre stated, and I quote:
It is in the nature of the Canadian opposition tradition to be irresponsible or non-responsible and I mean that in the highest sense of the word.
This is now the York Centre tradition for the opposition. Recent admissions by the NDP Member for Essex-Windsor follows this tradition. In his drive to lead his party of the irresponsible, he is reported in The Toronto Star to have said that the current leader of the NDP wanted to "remain neutral on free trade because it could turn out to be a positive deal for Canada."
Led by the Member for Essex-Windsor, the NDP caucus stayed true to the York Centre tradition and ultimately opposed the deal. What is the difference? Here it is. The Liberals readily admit their irresponsibility and the NDP operate irresponsible-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


NAMIBIA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, it is often the case in this House that we spend our time talking about international situations which are not working out, regional conflicts, the prospect of war and various other things.
I think it is incumbent upon the House to take notice of a success story in the international situation that happened recently. I am talking about the election in Namibia. I am talking about the fact that in Namibia we saw the United Nations working as the United Nations was designed to be. That is the agency which provided the context in which a significant act of decolonization could take place, in this case Namibia bringing itself from the colonization of South Africa where free and fair elections were held as a result of the efforts put in by many Canadians, and people from all over the world converging on Namibia to make that free and fair election possible. It is incumbent upon us to notice that and also to call on the Canadian government to do everything in its power to make sure that the very difficult days which are ahead for Namibia are days in which it will have the full support of the Canadian government in every way.


CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE YEAR IN QUEBEC
Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, on November 10, at a ceremony held at the Meridien hotel in Montreal to mark the eighteith anniversary of the Province of Quebec Chamber of Commerce, the Des Moulins Chamber of Commerce, from my own riding, was chosen as "The Quebec's Chamber of Commerce of the year" among 240 participating organizations.
The Chamber received this award for its exceptionnal performance, its dynamism, its integrity all contributing factors to the economic development of our area throughout the year.
November 23, 1989

Many of its initiatives were successful, namely the Provincial Data Processing and Office Automation Show, the Primas Gala held to highlight the achievements of our business community, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention in particular the tremendous work of Mr. Normand Harvey and Mr. Claude Hamer, and their team. They have done a remarkable job.
We should be proud, Mr. Speaker, of what those people have achieved, as evidence of the enthousiasm of the Des Moulins area and the riding of Terrebonne.
I want to congratulate the Des Moulins Chamber of Commerce. I know this honour will fall upon all the people of Terrebonne.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John  N.@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Canadians now know that his government has untold millions of dollars to finance an apparently limitless number of dubious enterprises.
Given that the government has all this money to throw around, why is there no money for child care programs, why is there no money for single mothers, why is there no money for food banks, why has the old age pension been clawed back and why has the family allowance been clawed back? What kind of priorities does this government have?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday in answer to a question about a loan to a strip joint implying that some sort of political pressure had been applied, I said that a mistake was made and corrective action had been taken. Subsequently I found out that that should have been in the plural. Mistakes have been made. Mistakes have been made going back to 1972-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Who was the minister?
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Various businesses which were identified as nightclubs, licensed dining facilities and so on at the time and subsequently in other cases brought in exotic entertainment of the type which I think the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and myself would agree was probably inappropriate for federal government financing.
As a consequence the policies of the FBDB have been tightened up to ensure that this does not happen in the future. I hope the right hon. gentleman will join with me in applauding that move by the executive of this Crown corporation and in ensuring that we can say unanimously in this House that we do not think Canadian government agencies should be financing that kind of activity.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: It takes this minister a few days but he finally catches on, Mr. Speaker. I want to say to him that whatever may have gone on in the past, we never sacrificed programs to the needy in order to finance the type of program he has just described. My supplementary question is-
I can wait until the minister gets briefed by the Deputy Prime Minister here. Do you want time out, Don?

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again for the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister responsible for the status of women.
Since the government spent millions of dollars financing countless establishments that exploit women, why did it cut 15 per cent this year from the funds intended for programs to help women?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, although the question did not really deal with my responsibility, the preamble certainly did.
To make it clear, the Federal Business Development Bank, which has been around for over 40 years, is in the business as a lender of last resort to small business. Part of its business has to do with establishments like motels, nightclubs and so on in the tourist business. For a lot of years, going back to at least 1972, we have had instances where they have been funding organizations that bring in entertainers. They are of a type that are probably not appropriate, at least for federal government help.

November 23, 1989
Oral Questions
I have to add that unfortunately, because of the horrendous deficit left by the previous government, we have had to cut back on the funds that the FBDB has available for small business. It has gone through a 50 per cent reduction.
Is the hon. member suggesting that we should eliminate entirely this bank which is a bank of last resort to help small business in this country? If that is the position of the Liberal party, let it make that position public.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the Federal Business Development Bank. Under its charter it is indeed a bank of last resort. Under its charter it is supposed to help legitimate small business and is supposed to help the economic growth of the country. I have read the charter too.
I ask the minister the reason why this year only 16 per cent of the money available from the Federal Business Development Bank went to the poorest regions of our country and only 16 per cent went to the Atlantic provinces, the prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories. I ask the minister if that is also an accident. Is that the fault of some bureaucrat? How can he explain as a policy matter that only 16 per cent of the funds available from that bank went to the poorest regions of Canada?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the regional development programs of this government through ACOA, WD and through my department in terms of Quebec and northern Ontario are there to provide government assistance to industries, generally speaking, which help in that area. The Federal Business Development Bank is in the business of helping small business across the countiy. It does not have a mandate that says it must allocate its loan portfolio according to other criteria.
One of the reasons we have had to maintain these regional development programs has been the failure of past government policies to get the kind of economic development in those regions which would create the demand for loans to which the bank could respond.


JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General about the undertaking of Commissioner Inkster. While Commissioner Inkster is pursuing his independent investigation into possible political manipulation of the RCMP, and we in the opposition support him in this inquiry, I want to ask the Solicitor General about matters which are not police matters but come within his direct responsibility, namely his office.
I know, as a former Solicitor General, that there is an information flow of sensitive police information to the Solicitor General about police investigations which are under way. I want to ask the Solicitor General whether any of that sensitive police information has been made available by him or through his office directly or indirectly to any persons who are involved in the investigations or the subject of the investigations.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: No.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I want to ask the Solicitor General whether he has or will undertake to call his staff together and ascertain from them if that is indeed the case.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I answered clearly. I defended-and I believe I expressed very clearly in the last few days-the total independence which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other police forces must have. So far, no one in the RCMP has said that they were subject to any political interference. I am very satisfied with that, especially when it comes from the Commissioner.
And I do not see why-I always wanted, my team and those around me never wanted to interfere in any way with the work of police officers and I will continue to maintain that position, which seems to me to be the right one. I am glad to learn from my colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre, that as a former solicitor general, he knows how important it is to preserve this independence. And my colleague himself said and repeated that the Commissioner is a man of great integrity. That is what he said this week and if anyone were able to clear up this whole business, he is the one and we should trust him. I take your word, my dear colleague!
November 23, 1989


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank. He will be aware that during the eighties and indeed back into the seventies it had always been the bank's practice that it would forbid loans or financing to strip joints, topless bars and exotic dance halls and the like. Yet we have found out now that not only once, but twice, three times, four times, five times, six times, in just one day, all sorts of abuses of this particular regulation have been uncovered.
Has the minister conducted or launched an investigation to find out the extent of these abuses? Knowing that the regulations have been breached time and time again, what was the cause of the breach of this regulation and was there any political interference involved?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, I have asked how it happened, and yes, I do expect the president to take remedial action. If it was inadvertent, then the policy change should prevent it happening in the future. If it was deliberate, then the penalties, if you will, should reflect that fact.
It is unacceptable to have deliberately given loans of a nature that are contrary to the policies of the bank and indeed of the government.
I have no evidence whatsoever at this point in time of any political interference. It is a Crown corporation, it does operate at arm's length. From time to time, many members of the House phone on behalf of businesses in their constituencies. One of the things we are discovering is if funding has been provided for a motel with a licensed dining room attached, frequently when the business is not up to snuff or what have you, the owners have brought in exotic entertainment. That occurs after the fact. There will be in the future but there has not been in the past a provision to call the loan when that kind of change is made.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a particular enterprise owner who changes the operation
Oral Questions
during the process of a loan repayment. We are talking about the Lido club which has been in operation, presumably, for a number of years.
I assume that the representatives of the Federal Business Development Bank visit the premises to see how the business is being conducted and they receive financial statements, surely, on an annual basis.
Yesterday the minister said this was an isolated case, that a mistake had been made by someone, a senior public servant. We now know that there were at least six strip joints, and who knows how many more, so the minister cannot fob this off on a senior bureaucrat. Surely to goodness he is responsible. I want him to explain why he was not aware of this incredible range of abuse that was taking place across the country regarding the bank for which he is responsible.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I said on Tuesday, in response to an accusation that political interference had been brought to bear in terms of the Lido club, that that was not true and that as far as I knew this was an isolated incident. That is what I knew at that point in time.
The loan in question, by the way, was a mortgage loan, a loan secured by a mortgage on the land and buildings, which was adequate security for the loan. The cash flow to service the loan was provided by a business which was registered as a dining establishment with a liquor licence. The nature of the entertainment was not on the application. It will be in future. If the entertainment is unacceptable, the Federal Business Development Bank will not be making loans to that kind of business. I repeat, the loan was to a numbered company which owned the land and the buildings and supplied the security for the loan.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we recognize that financing strip clubs, topless bars and the like has been an inappropriate lending practice since the beginning of the Federal Business Development Bank and has been abused, as the minister has indicated, since as early as 1972.
There is something very obscene happening here. I know it is very funny when a government cuts $2 million from women's programs at Secretary of State, when it deindexes family allowance, and when it refuses to meet its child care commitment!

November 23, 1989
Oral Questions
Yesterday in Kamloops alone, my own community, a request for funding for a women's shelter was denied, yet the government presumably puts millions of dollars into the Federal Business Development Bank and approves the Lido, El Greco strip club, the Hideout strip club, Club 61 strip club, Voyageur strip club and Minsky's strip club.
Is the minister simply going to say: "I know that the regulations have been broken for years and years"? What is he going to do to ensure that this kind of lending practice stops and is never, ever done again?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member was here for the last two days. He is late to the issue, and he needs to get his clip for television too.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: That has been answered six or seven times. The answer was: when I became aware of it, I ordered a change in policy to ensure it does not happen again. An investigation is under way to find out whether any officers of the Federal Business Development Bank flagrantly violated the policy that is in place.
I do not know what else the hon. member is getting at. That was the answer two days ago, yesterday, and it is the answer today. He seems to be demanding of me the answer that I gave two days ago.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the minister responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank.
The minister will recall that yesterday I asked him if he would be prepared to provide his assurances to the House that FBDB had not financed other strip joints than the Lido club in Hull. We now know why the minister refused to answer the question, preferring to say, and I quote: "a mistake was made." Will the minister now do the correct thing, the right thing, and tell us how many more such mistakes have been made by the Federal Business Development Bank? Will he table a list in the House of Commons of how many strip joints are financed by his department?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly tell the hon. member
about one called the Hideout in Cornwall, Ontario, the constituency of Ed Lumley, which in March 1983, when Ed Lumley was the minister responsible for FBDB, became a strip joint.


Don Boudria: They already had their loan.


Harvie Andre: The fact is that we are discovering, going back as far as 1972 under a whole string of Liberal ministers including the House leader of that party, that the FBDB had made loans to institutions which in most of the cases brought in exotic entertainment after they had received the mortgage loans. We have changed that policy.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to ask the minister why there isn't money for anything else but there is always money around for strip joint owners.

I would like to ask the Minister responsible for women's issues the following question. My leader asked it a few moments ago but there was no answer, as usual.
Two days ago, I asked the Minister responsible for women's issues whether she was in favour of lending money to a strip club, the Lido, in Hull. I now want to ask the following question: Is the Minister responsible for women's issues in favour of financing clubs which have naked young women dancing on tables for men's entertainment? Yes or no? That is what I want to know.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the policy, as I have indicated seven or eight times, is that we do not favour, we do not support, we do not believe it is okay and we have put in place policies to ensure that in future the FBDB or any other government institution, for that matter, does not provide loans to institutions which are putting on that kind of behaviour.
The hon. member talks about the club Lido which I understand had male strippers when it first got into this business. On the question of trying to make it into something having to do with status of women, I think he ought to reflect on the record of his own government, the record of the man sitting in front of him who was minister responsible for this institution during that period, and at least recognize that in fact corrective action has been undertaken now that this issue has become public. We do not, I repeat we do not believe it is

appropriate for the FBDB to be providing loans to these types of institutions.


Don Boudria: What about the list, Harvie?


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the minister responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank.
It has now come to our attention that the Federal Business Development Bank has a list of notaries who act as legal agents for the bank's various transactions. We know that for loans between $200,000 and $400,000 the list of notaries is put together at the regional office, but for loans over $400,000 that list is provided by head office.
Could the minister table in this House, either today or tomorrow, the complete list of those individuals who are on the list of notaries and legal agents at FBDB, as well as their dates of appointment?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that request or representation as notice. I do not know what is involved. I know that thousands and thousands of loans have been made.
Does the hon. member want me to go back to 1946? Is this a leading question that has something else attached to it? If he would tell me what he is after, perhaps I can answer more fully.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will make it very clear. The list I am looking for is the current list which has been provided by this government to the Federal Business Development Bank and which it is currently using.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. Will the minister inform this House at the same time what criteria was used by the government in selecting these individuals for the Federal Business Development Bank notary list? Will he provide the information now, or will we have to wait as long as we did to find out that Senator Michel Cogger had his bill in the till at FBDB as well?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if the member is asking for long lists of people who do the legal work, the notary work and so on for this Crown corporation, I think he
Oral Questions
should do that through the Order Paper. That is the most appropriate way.
If he has somebody specific in mind, if there is some specific wrongdoing, make an accusation and I will provide the information if he is on a fishing expedition, the Order Paper is the place to go.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I am sure he is aware that the level of industrial toxic contamination of some B.C. seafoods is so high that major new closures are being ordered today on the B.C. coast at Kitimat, Gold River, Elk Falls, Cowichan Bay, Nanaimo, Crofton and Powell River.
Would the minister of fisheries advise the House how long he has know about the growing levels of contamination and why he has not taken any steps to stop the growing levels of contamination before the fisheries had to be closed?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, indeed members of the government and I are well aware of these very unfortunate findings of elevated levels of dioxin and furan compounds in the vicinity of several B.C. coast pulp mills.
That is why, when the presence of dioxins in the vicinity of pulp mills became internationally known in the winter of 1987-88, we initiated a national pulp mill monitoring program. As a result of early findings of that scientific analysis we closed two areas in Howe Sound and Prince Rupert to commercial shell fishing last December.
We have been intensifying the monitoring. At my request we have taken large numbers of samples in the vicinity of these mills and subjected them to assessment by the Health Protection Branch of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On his advice, yesterday afternoon we decided that these closures were immediately necessary in the public interest.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in February of this year Dr. Murray Rankin of the University of Victoria Law School discovered that two-thirds of pollution permits reviewed in British Columbia had been in violation for more than one year. That was in February of this year; two-thirds of the industries dumping into the waters of British Colum-

November 23, 1989
Oral Questions
bia had been in violation for more than a year. They had been breaking the law, to be precise Section 33 of the Fisheries Act.
Today's closure of prawn, oyster and crab fisheries is no accident. It is the direct result of the minister allowing companies to break the law. On behalf of British Columbians and all Canadians, I would like to ask the minister of fisheries: When does he intend to uphold the law?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the quantities of these chemicals which are being measured are very, very minute indeed and difficult to detect.
The hon. member also knows that with the exception of the consumption standards with regard to the edible portions of fish products we do not have an accurate base line, nor did industry have until recently a means of determining what its levels of discharge were. Indeed, the levels of discharge in effluent streams could be below the detectable limit.
Notwithstanding, as a result of our monitoring of the meats and the consumable portions of shellfish through the National Pulp Mill Monitoring Program, we have now determined that levels in excess of those acceptable from a health risk standpoint are occurring. That is what is leading to these announcements.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Terry Dicks, member of Parliament from the United Kingdom.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCOME TAX
Mr. Charles  De@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The NDP financial critic took advantage of last week's parliamentary recess to accuse our government once again of unduly favouring business at the expense of the average citizen who cannot evade the tax system. It seems NDP members do not have the
courage to put their questions directly to the Minister, so I will do so instead. Is it true, sir, that over 90,000 Canadian companies made a profit of $27 billion in 1987 and did not pay income tax for that year, and if so, what has the Minister done to remedy the situation?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as usual the New Democratic Party uses statistics which are out of date. The information obtained by the finance critic of the NDP was prior to tax reform, which brought in such things as a broader corporate tax base, changes in capital gains, general anti-avoidance rules, and so on.
The results of the first phase of tax reform are very clear. Not only is it fairer for all Canadians, but over 40,000 more corporations are now taxable, resulting in additional revenue of some $5 billion over five years. In fact the most recent figures indicate that corporate tax revenue was $11.7 billion, up by 7.8 per cent over last year.
Phase two of tax reform is going to be even better. I just wish the Opposition would keep track of all the positive things this government is doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


JUSTICE
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Yesterday the minister, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, in dealing with the Peter White letter, said:
I think it would be entirely appropriate to ask the commissioner again, when he is back in the country, whether this document can be made public.
We do not agree that this is an RCMP matter. We believe that it is a government matter. Peter White who wrote the commissioner was the principal secretary to the Prime Minister in the PMO's office.
Why do we have to wait three weeks to hear from the commissioner? There are telephones. Why do you not call the minister and release the letter immediately?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into this matter to

some extent arising out of questions yesterday. This issue was raised before the standing committee.
On June 6, the Commissioner of the RCMP wrote to the chairman of the standing committee and indicated the reasons it would be inappropriate to release such a letter, and I quote as follows:
After consultation with my legal advisors, I believe it would be inappropriate for me to produce this document which was provided to the police in the course of a criminal investigation or for me to disclose, through testimony, to the committee any information contained in this document.
My decision is based on the long-standing practice that the contents of an investigation file should not be produced or otherwise made available, save and except during the course of judicial proceedings in which the rules of procedure and laws of evidence protect the interests of any individual involved in the matter.
He goes on to say:
Public disclosure of information pertinent to or bearing on the investigation could have an adverse effect upon these judicial proceedings and could seriously jeopardize the rights of these individuals to a fair trial.
This has been pointed out-


John Napier Turner: The trial is over, Don.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member knows that there are other individuals-


John Napier Turner: We just asked for the part respecting Grise.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals change their standards and rules of operation when they are in government as compared to when they are in opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: What about you, Don?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I quote the former Solicitor General, the member for York Centre, when he said-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The NDP chickadees are singing again, Mr. Speaker.
I quote the former Solicitor General who said the following, as reported at page 1272 of Hansard for February 10, 1984. It is very revealing and has to be put on the record. I am quoting the hon. member:
Everyone surely knows that the Minister, the Solicitor General, does not tell the RCMP when to open and close criminal files. The Solicitor General does not tell the RCMP who to investigate or who not to investigate and where or when to seek a judicial warrant to
Oral Questions
engage in more intrusive investigation. The Canadian people want police investigations to be entirely free of government interference and direction. In other words, people want the RCMP security service to be accountable, but in police work they want the RCMP to be independent.
That is precisely what we are doing, preserving the independence and the integrity of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why we are asking questions. We are concerned about integrity with the RCMP.
When we look at this particular situation we see that this case is over. If the case is over and a decision is made, is the Prime Minister or his office prepared to release the letter now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member got his facts straight he would realize that the case is not over. It was referred to in The Gazette of Montreal this morning:
The head of the RCMP criminal investigation in Quebec said Tuesday he decided not to issue search warrants against Grise and political organizer Joseph Hamelin because he did not want to influence the outcome of the election.
There are two members involved, and the hon. member should know that. He may not want to listen to the government or trust the government, but surely to goodness he should trust the words of the Commissioner of the RCMP.
What could be more appropriate than that, given the words, the evidence and the testimony of his own colleague, the former Solicitor General, the member for York Centre?
Research your questions a little better next time; don't just rely on the research department.


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. The 2,100 federal ship crew workers put their lives on the line every time they put out to sea to protect the safety and security of Canadians, all for a miserly average salary of $21,000 a year.

Oral Questions
The strike of these workers leaves Canada's fishing stocks wide open to foreign fishermen, grinds search and rescue to a halt, and jeopardizes response to environmental disasters such as the near spill off the coast of Alaska just this morning.
Will the minister finally admit that these negotiations have been bungled, that it is time to put a fair offer on the table to get these people back to work and get things moving in Canadian waters?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the TVeasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned quite a few times in the House on this particular matter, the government is prepared to go back to the table at any time.
We would welcome a positive sign from the union to indicate that it is willing to sit down and talk seriously about reaching a mutually agreeable negotiated settlement.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, it is the minister who has said these people are necessary to the safety and security of the Canadian public. It is up to him not to sit back and wait for the union but to put a decent offer on the table to get these people back to the bargaining table.
Has the minister in fact told his negotiators that $21,000 is not decent compensation for the risks these people take, that their lives are worth the same whether they work on the east coast, the west coast, the north coast or the Great Lakes? Has he instructed his negotiators to put a decent and equitable offer on the table?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we have already put a decent and acceptable offer on the table in keeping with the offer we made to the rest of the public service.
We recognize the question of pay equity between the east and the west, and we put that on the table. I wish the hon. member opposite would research her questions before asking them. That is on the table.


Marlene Catterall: But 1991 is not soon enough.


Robert René de Cotret: That is on the table. It is on the table for the end of the contract. That was flatly rejected and no counter offer was forthcoming from the union.
If the union would like to come back with a counter offer, we are more than prepared to look at it.
I am saying that we, as a responsible government concerned with the welfare of our employees and the safety and security of Canadians, are willing to go back to the table on a moment's notice as soon as the union tells us it has something to counter the offer that is already there.


Marlene Catterall: You should take the initiative. It is your responsibility.


JUSTICE
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Under Section 5 of the RCMP Act it is not the commissioner who is in charge of the RCMP; it is the Solicitor General who directs the commissioner.
Will the Solicitor General exercise his responsibilities in respect of the Peter White letter and say that in the interests of the public and the administration of justice he will not wait for the commissioner to come back, that he will today produce the Peter White letter in this House?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, that question was answered earlier by the Deputy Prime Minister. I am really astonished, and I find it hard to understand the NDP's position on this matter. We have made it abundantly clear that we believe, and I think we are supported in this by the former Solicitor General, the hon. member for York Centre, that the integrity and independence of the RCMP must be preserved. Is the hon. member suggesting that I should intervene and give instructions to RCMP officers in a case that is now before the courts, Mr. Speaker? If that is what is being suggested, all I can say is that I would never do such a thing, because I respect the integrity of the RCMP and because we must let the RCMP do its job, Mr. Speaker, especially when an investigation is being challenged before the courts.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, let me ask about another exercise of the minister's responsibility in the Grise
November 23, 1989

matter itself. Chief Superintendent McConnell, who says he made the decision last year to delay because of the election, has said that if he had to do the same thing he would do it again.
Under the minister's responsibility for the direction of the RCMP, as a general policy matter does he agree with Chief Superintendent McConnell? Does he believe that it is appropriate for the RCMP to delay the administration of justice for election and political purposes?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, there are two elements here. First, what Chief Superintendant McConnell said, as reported by the newspapers, and as far as I can see, first of all, he clearly explained that he had never been subject to any political interference whatsoever, that he made the decision himself and that he informed his superiors at the RCMP accordingly. The RCMP Commissioner said this week that he had been informed the day before-I think it was Monday or Tbesday, I'm not sure which-and that he would check all the details of this decision and find out exactly what had happened.
As the hon. member for York Centre said earlier, I believe we should trust the integrity of the RCMP Commissioner, and in this respect, I think we should wait until the Commissioner reports to us on all the circumstances of a case that would seem to be sensitive, and we must consider the fact that some elements are still before the courts. I think we have a duty, and with me the hon. member for Victoria and the other Members of this House, to ensure that we do not interfere with a police investigation, especially when such investigations are before the courts, Mr. Speaker.


NAVIGATIONAL SAFETY
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport.
The 1989 Great Lakes Water Quality Board's report to the International Joint Commission states that proposed changes of regulations to no longer require licensed pilots on the Great Lakes may undermine navigational safety, especially in areas where compulsory pilotage is now required, including the Welland Canal.
Oral Questions
This has caused concern because navigational safety of commercial vessels is fundamental to avoiding spills of hazardous materials through collision or grounding.
Will the Minister of State for Transport follow the recommendations of the board and review the potential consequences if compulsory pilotage is eliminated?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question because I know of his concern for safety and shipping within the Great Lakes.
Actually the proposed amendments do not affect the areas set aside for compulsory pilotage. Those areas remain the same.
The proposed amendments are for exemptions for captains who have the experience to travel the Great Lakes with their ships. Nevertheless concerns have been expressed, and just last Tuesday the minister appointed a very eminent lawyer experienced in maritime law who will investigate as far as the recommendations are concerned and come forward with a report to the minister.
No decision will be made until that report is received.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I want to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister if I can just get his attention for a minute. The question is on a serious matter in Labrador and Newfoundland, those fishermen and plant workers who do not qualify for unemployment insurance because of the failure of the fishery.
Three weeks ago the minister said in the House, as reported on page 5000 of Hansard, that she was going to build in flexibility to the criteria to meet the needs of those who really needed help. Yet, a directive from her office in Newfoundland went out this past week saying: "These are the only funds we have for this initiative and the program has been designed to assist bona fide people who meet the criteria". Only 50 per cent of the fishermen and plant workers meet the criteria.

November 23, 1989
Oral Questions
My question is very simple. Will the minister see that the directive given and the commitment given by the minister three weeks ago is carried out by the department? If he does not, there will be women and children on the coast of Labrador, on the coast of Newfoundland, who will be facing a pretty bleak Christmas this year.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to make that representation to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
I understand the department put forward measures as rapidly as it could. The department is dealing with those who are eligible now as rapidly as it can.
As I have said before, I will be very happy to make those representations to the minister.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, what we need is a definite commitment to act now. We have been on this case for a month. There are people who have had no income at all this summer or this fall. Christmas is coming.
Don't give us a commitment to study the problem; give us a commitment that you are going to help the people who need it in Newfoundland and Labrador, right now.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, this is not a commitment to study a problem. The government is very sensitive and very much aware of the particular difficulties of those people to whom the member is referring.
Some measures have been put forward, and the member knows that. We have dealt with those who are eligible under the rules as rapidly as we can.
The government intends to act as rapidly as it can to deal with all people who are concerned by this problem and do whatever it can to help them.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications.
I know the minister is putting out the story that he did not snub the ministers of telephones from the prairies when they were here on Tuesday. After having personally witnessed the minister's uncomprehending, ill-informed and indeed sometimes arrogant attitude toward this issue at his press conference and in two Question Periods, I have to believe the prairie ministers.
When the minister had personally promised that he would not act unilaterally before seriously considering a compromise proposal from the prairie alliance-and he received that compromise proposal several days before he made his surprise announcement, why has he not to this day made a substantive reply to that proposal?
When is he going to quit snubbing not only the prairie ministers but indeed all prairie Canadians?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the process of defining a telecommunication policy for Canada started seven years ago and is ongoing. It involves both reflection and communication, and I am sure that thanks to our approach based on a sense of belonging and on compromise, we will put together for Canadians a thoroughly modem communication policy.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. When can they expect a substantive reply to that proposal?
When can they get a copy of the act which the minister has not given them?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, all things are falling into place. When the time comes, I am sure the green grapes will be ready to harvest.


HOUSING
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Finance).
I am sure the Minister realizes that the most recent federal budget discriminated against the Province of Quebec generally and the city of Montreal in particular.
The fact is that, effective January 1, 1990, no funds will be made available under the rental component of the RRAP.
November 23, 1989

Could the minister who, as a Quebecer, knows just how much the residential rehabilitation assistance program is a success in the province of Quebec, make representation to his colleague the Minister of Finance for the purpose of re-establishing this program as soon as possible?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell my hon. colleague that we have indeed observed the impact the reduction of this program has had not only on the Quebec region, but also on some others. As we are now in the process of preparing the forthcoming budget, this is one of the items we will look into very carefully.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I suggest the minister's reply was not adequate. The various provincial ministers responsible for housing are going to meet next week and this program is expected to expire at the end of December. Therefore, a reply is required very shortly.
Because the city of Montreal, which had set up its own housing rehabilitation program to supplement the Federal program, will be most adversely affected by this Ottawa decision, the number of tenants there being the greatest in Canada, it will likely be forced to give up its own program. Could the minister accept at least that the rental component continue to apply to all Canadian cities which have their own program to supplement the federal program?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I could tell the Hon. Member that even before he contacted me about this problem, my colleague from the Conservative caucus had already done so with tremendous energy. They have already made representations concerning this to my colleague responsible for housing. We are in fact very actively looking into this.

[English[


POINTS OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period today I am afraid that the Minister of National Revenue inadvertently misled the House. I know he did not do it intentionally.
Business of the House
I think it is important that we clarify for the record what the member from Yorkton-Melville said the other day regarding the profitable corporations that do not pay any income tax. He said that in 1987 there were over 93,000 profitable corporations that failed to pay income tax because of the various tax exemptions in the tax act. I think that is the appropriate comment. That was in 1987, on profits of $27 billion. Then the minister confirmed that a year later, 1988, the year that we do not really have adequate statistics for yet, there were still 50,000 profitable corporations not paying any income tax.
We appreciate the minister's clarification of that. We were not certain what the number was for 1988 but now we know it is 50,000.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the course of my quoting an article from the Montreal Gazette in response to a question from the member for Moncton, I am advised that I used the word "members" and it should have been individuals, rather than members. I would not want to leave the inference that it was Members of Parliament. They were individuals.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the usual Thursday business question. I know that the Government House Leader will be unable to give a complete response because certain discussions are under way with respect to the business on Monday and Tbesday, which I feel will likely be resolved in a way that will be satisfactory to all sides of the House. But I think, in conformity with our custom, I should ask the question in the first instance now.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I will have more precise details to share with the House very shortly, as we are reworking the wording of a House order upon which we have agreed.
I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the House Leader for the New Democratic Party for their assistance in bringing this about.

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
I can say that tomorrow will be an allotted day and next Wednesday will likely be an allotted day. We are in the process of working out a Elouse order which will lay out the details for Monday and Tuesday.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there is an additional point I would like to raise with my colleague, the Government House Leader. In the past it has been customary, although not always the case, that when a Prime Minister returns to Canada from an overseas trip he would give a statement to the House about the developments that took place during that trip. In that connection would it be expected that the Prime Minister would report to the House about his trip to the Soviet Union.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly raise that representation with the Prime Minister as soon as possible.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-43, an Act respecting abortion, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, when the bell rang I still had a few minutes left in my remarks to the House concerning the very important issue of abortion.
I was saying that the measure under consideration is not perfect but that it is a step in the right direction. I made the statement because I feel that pursuant to the second part of the bill a woman could consult her physician and have an abortion on demand. I think that the opinion of only one physician is not enough.
I believe that a committee of three or five doctors could interview the woman, meet with her family and all people involved and explain to them exactly what it is all about and what are the psychological and physical consequences of an abortion. Mr. Speaker, I think this would have more influence on the behaviour than if there were only one physician.
I am not saying the Bill must be rejected because if we do that it would be like voting pro-choice since the Bill would stay on the shelf, never to be heard of again. We would have no opportunity to delve into the question, debate every aspect of the consequences of abortion, and talk about family planning.
Mr. Speaker, this is why I support the motion for second reading so we may study the matter in committee and bring in the necessary amendments and corrections.
Among such amendments and corrections I would favour considering the advisability of a properly structured family policy, nothing very hard to implement and which only civil servants can easily understand, but something simple which would make it possible for men and women, families and children to develop in society, to make use of our common wealth and plan in the long term. I would like to see structures designed to accommodate all needy people. We could help them earn a living and seek fulfillment in a more or less liberal career.
I think that all we have done so far is paper over the cracks in our society. We have been trying to plug holes. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, we have put band-aids on wooden legs. All parties in the House of Commons have been asking for the establishment of government structures and policies aimed at the family. What are we waiting for?
Mr. Speaker, I should think that Members who will have the opportunity to sit on the legislative committee to study the measure on abortion will be in a position to shed their political party bias, make constructive amendments to the Bill-amendments geared to the 21st century-and set up the kind of structures which will enable us to prosper in this beautiful and great country of ours.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, once again Parliament is confronted with the complex and difficult issue of abortion. I say complex and difficult because we must deal with such questions as when does human life begin in the unborn child, when is it permissible to terminate that life and for what reasons, and also, to what extent should the criminal law apply to behaviour surrounding the abortion question.
November 23, 1989

It is also a difficult question for members of Parliament because this is a bill which is submitted as a free vote issue. Members of Parliament must make up their own minds on the bill and must provide their own reasons for voting for or against it. They cannot fall back on a party position.
I am personally opposed to abortion on moral grounds because I believe that life starts at an early stage and must be protected no matter how undeveloped or incomplete the unborn child is. On a moral basis, I would only accept abortion when the life of the mother is seriously in danger. That is my personal, moral position.
On the other hand, I recognize that there are many persons all around me, both here in this House and in my community, who do not share these views. These are individuals who are just as sincere, just as intelligent and just as altruistic as I am and yet they have a completely different view with respect to this subject.
The Christian churches have different views on this subject. They are all opposed to abortion but they differ with respect to the grounds on which abortion should be permitted in the criminal law, and they differ with respect to the period when the foetus has human life, and they differ on other grounds as well.
My point is that personally we have strong views with respect to abortion and those views are based on moral principles, but there are others who are just as sincere and intelligent and altruistic who have different views.
We must recognize that in Canada we live in a pluralistic society which has many views on an issue such as this. In these circumstances, how should we deal with this subject under the law? How should this subject be treated, in particular, by the criminal law?
While many moral codes, both religious and personal, say that abortion is wrong, I do not know of any moral code which says that every moral law should be incorporated in the criminal law. As a matter of fact, in this country, we have many types of behaviour which are considered immoral and which, at one time, were forbidden by the criminal law but which today are not forbidden by the criminal law. I give as examples, adultery, homosexual acts, birth control, blasphemy, suicide, gambling, drunkenness, addiction and so on. As a matter of fact, in some jurisdictions in the world, these things are still considered criminal, and in some countries there is a consensus that they should be considered criminal. But in this country, although we believe very strongly that some of these types of behaviour are immoral, we do not
Government Orders
believe that they are proper subject matter for the criminal law.
The question that we must determine in a debate like this is that despite our different, strongly held moral positions, what should be the criteria for certain behaviour to be covered by the criminal law? In answering that question the first principle is that the criminal law should be used with discretion and restraint because it involves penal consequences. It involves prison, and the curtailment of freedom. Consequently, the criminal law should only be used as a last resort in controlling behaviour in a democratic and pluralistic society.
If that is not done, and there is not a strong consensus in respect of a matter being covered by the criminal law, then it will be almost impossible to enforce that particular law. We saw that in the past. I was in this Parliament when lotteries were illegal under the Criminal Code, but nobody paid much attention to that article of the law. While that matter was covered by the criminal law, people turned their heads and pretended that they did not see what was happening, because in fact there was no consensus in the country that it should still be considered a part of the criminal law. The reason was that there were many different views with respect to the morality of gambling.
The same applied with respect to homosexual acts by consent, in private. It was the same in respect of suicide and other matters which were finally taken out of the criminal law. So if certain individuals insist on putting certain behaviour in the criminal law when there is a wide variety of views in respect of that behaviour, then it will not be enforceable. And when it is not enforced, the whole criminal law is brought into disrespect and disrepute.
I believe that totally controlling abortion in the criminal law, when there is no consensus to do so, does not really do very much to reduce the number of abortions or does not deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancy.
It is my strongly held view that there is no consensus in this country with respect to the criminalization of abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. It is very difficult to detect such a crime in the early stages of the pregnancy and such a law would be almost impossible to enforce. I do not believe that abortion should be criminalized in the early stages of pregnancy and I believe that it should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide what must be done. In doing that, the woman in question must wrestle

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
with her own moral position and the doctor must apply his own professional standards and ethics.
I want to make absolutely clear that because one opposes the criminalization of abortion does not mean that one is saying that abortion is all right, that abortion is okay, that abortion is a good thing. By opposing the criminalization of abortion, we simply mean that in a pluralistic society, the criminal law is not the proper response to the problem of unwanted pregnancy and abortion. I think that we have too many abortions in this country, both legal and illegal, and I think we must do all in our power to reduce that number.
The question is how we deal with the problem and how we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Once again, I do not believe that the response is a strict criminal law dealing with abortions. If we are serious in wanting to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions, then we must have preventive programs. We must have better programs to help mothers keep their children and raise them properly. We especially need better programs for child support, housing, nutrition, education, pregnancy leave, day care and so on. If we did more of these things we would find that more mothers would be able to keep their children, and would want to keep their children. We would have fewer unwanted pregnancies.
We also need better programs in family planning, in reproductive education and in moral instruction. By doing these sorts of things I think we will see the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies decline.
There are some in this House and some outside the House who say that abortion is murder and should be treated like murder since the moment of conception. The state has never treated abortion history of our Criminal Code you will note that several crimes have been treated differently than murder. The crime of murder at one time had the penalty of capital punishment, which then became life imprisonment. We had the
crime of infanticide, the crime of manslaughter, and the crime of abortion which was always treated differently than murder.
Even within our Christian churches the death of a foetus in its early stages was never treated like the death of a child after birth. No church that I know of believes in the baptism of an infant immediately upon conception. As a matter of fact, it treats that unbaptized child in a different way from a theological point of view.
I will conclude by saying that I intend to vote against this bill because I believe, first of all, that it is an inappropriate use of the criminal law. I could accept some criminalization in the later stages of the pregnancy, but even then I doubt whether the substance of the law should be in the Criminal Code but perhaps in some other federal or provincial statute. I am also opposed to the bill because I do not believe that it deals with the real causes of unwanted pregnancies and with the means that will bring about their reduction.
It is my intention to continue to listen to the arguments in this debate. The bill will probably go to committee and then we will have another debate at third reading. For the moment that is my position. I will vote against the bill.
I repeat that this is a difficult subject. I have no problem with my own personal moral position. I am opposed to abortion on moral grounds, but what we are discussing in this House is not what is moral or immoral about abortion. We are discussing to what extent abortion should be criminalized. That is the issue that we must address.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Edmonton East there is a point of order by the President of the Privy Council.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been, as I indicated earlier, discussions among the parties and I think you will find that there will be unanimous consent for me to move the following order and to vote immediately without debate.
November 23, 1989


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders

['Mr. Speaker, the issue of abortion is not for the timid. In general, legislators have displayed a great deal of frailty and evasiveness by refusing to confront what must surely be called the ethical, social and political quagmire of our time. The verdict of this House will determine the value which our society places on human life itself and the very foundation upon which all our laws are based.\nIn the past it had been possible for those who wished to avoid taking responsibility for their decisions to hide behind the neutrality of the courts. Recent legal decisions have shown that there can be little neutrality on an issue which deals with the primary concept of life. Since the previous legislation was struck down, individual judges were forced into making complicated legal decisions based on their personal and independent interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have recently witnessed how the community and the courts', "November 23, 1989\nGovernment Orders\nwere left twisting in the wind because of this government's legislative paralysis.\nThe decision as to which life merits protection cannot be left to judges, doctors, or even women themselves. The issue must be dealt with on a national level by Parliament so that we as elected representatives may once and for all establish the supremacy of life and the protection of the unborn as would befit a civilized society. We must not be condemned by a future Parliament for legitimizing the termination of hundreds of thousands of unborn Canadians.\nThis fall the nation was embroiled in controversy. As a result, this government has been forced to hastily draft an abortion law in an attempt to fill the legislative void. The presentation of this bill must be classified as the worst kind of chicanery because Bill C-43, as written, is obviously not intended to be enforced. This bill will not prevent a single abortion, nor was this its objective. Yet it is still being fraudulently marketed as a compromise. On the one hand, this government tells us that abortion is illegal and, on the other, it outlines succinctly how the law can be circumvented in every case.\nBill C-43 is abortion on demand with red tape. The definition of health has been given the widest possible interpretation. One of the authors of this bill admitted in this House that Bill C-43 entitles women to abortion under a wide variety of circumstances. In effect, the legislation makes it possible for women to seek and obtain abortions for reasons that may have more to do with lifestyle considerations than with actual physical endangerment.\nIn fact, the health clause will operate as nothing more than a rubber stamp condonement of abortion on demand. It will allow women to abort their unborn child based on the fleeting notion of immediate convenience. But life itself is not convenient. Many of the mundane decisions we make on a daily basis are not expedient but we are forced to make them. The value of life is not a function of convenience. Our society grants those who are legally regarded as persons the right to life, liberty and security of person.\nWe must remember that even during this century the rights of women were severely abridged. We had to fight for what are now considered basic human rights. It was only when social attitudes changed that we were granted full personhood before the law. Thus it would seem incumbent upon those of us who until fairly recently\nwere denied full legal status and protection to extend those same rights to the unborn.\nBy the simplest definitions available to us, a foetus should qualify for personhood. But as history has proven, the attributes necessary for the granting of legal status can be arbitrary, capricious and discretionary. The argument that this debate is a conflict between the rights of women and the rights of the foetus is political in nature. The mother has size, voice, legal recognition and voting power. The foetus has none of these endowments. It must rely on others for protection. Accordingly, it is granted not even the most minimal of protections under C-43.\nAs legislators we now have the duty to examine the basis upon which our laws are founded. We must re-examine why we as a society have outlawed crimes such as homicide. We condemn them not because they are socially or economically destabilizing, but because we recognize the intrinsic value of human life. Our laws are not simply non-aggression pacts between participants, but make some attempt to develop universal social standards. The tragedy of this bill is that it fails to address and grant the logical extension of the recognition of the intrinsic value of life to the foetus. It does not make any attempt to defend the weak, but merely caters to the agenda of the strong.\nWe must channel the energy and passion which surrounds this debate into dealing with our collective social responsibility for the well-being and security of our fledgling generation. Those of us who wish to protect the unborn must also understand, however, that the role of government cannot stop with merely enacting protective legislation. We must also deal with the true challenge of confronting and changing the social attitudes which so often lead to abortion.\nSociety must learn to accept the responsibility for caring for unwanted births by providing the social support systems which are so desperately needed by pregnant women. These women are often alone, abandoned and trapped by their predicament.\nOur governments have failed on many accounts to provide the necessary structural environment to assist women to deal with the existing social inequities. They have failed to provide child care spaces, adequate funding for shelters for abused women, and the counselling\nNovember 23, 1989", 'and education programs necessary to alleviate women of the traditional male-female economic disparities.\nIt must therefore be our responsibility as a caring and just society to protect and nurture mother and child through the full development of human life, both before and after birth. To merely impose an ethical judgment on the backs of the vulnerable members of society without compensating social support would be both cruel and irresponsible. Those of us who are compelled to champion the unborn cannot be indifferent to the needs of those who have survived birth. We cannot make our ethical and social decisions in a vacuum.\nSadly, the proposed legislation is seriously flawed because it makes no attempt to balance the rights of the unborn with those of the mother. The bill before us sets such a small bounty on the life of the unborn that even the lamest excuses of the mother will be accepted. We, as legislators, must learn to embrace the foetus as an equal member of society. To imperiously determine which life should be afforded protection of the law and which should not would leave our society extremely susceptible to the social decision-making characteristic of the genocidal policies of certain Third World nations.\nWe must not allow ourselves the arrogance of so easily denying life. We do not have that right. No one carries the truth in his pocket. If we are to err in our judgment let us err on the side of life.']
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, further to the order of the House made Ibesday, November 7, 1989, respecting the adjournment of the House on November 30 and December 1, 1989:
On Monday, November 27, 1989, the House, on Government Orders, shall dispose of Ways and Means Proceeding No. 8, and then consider and complete report stage and third reading of Bill C-36, with the Speaker interrupting at 4.45 p.m. that day, if necessary, any debate then under way and putting every question necessary to dispose of the said stages of the said bill, successively and without further amendment or debate. Following the completion of proceedings on Bill C-36, Private Members' Business shall be called and taken up for one hour, after which the House shall resume debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, and on any amendment thereto, until 10 o'clock p.m., when the debate and the House shall be adjourned until 10.00 o'clock a.m., TUesday, November 28, 1989;
That, on TUesday, November 28, 1989, the House will sit at 10.00 o'clock a.m. on Government Orders and shall resume debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-43, with the Speaker recognizing the Prime Minister at 11.00 o'clock a.m.; following the speech of the Prime Minister the question on the said motion, and on any amendment thereto, shall be deemed to have been put and a recorded division on the same shall be deemed to have been requested and deemed to be deferred until 1.00 o'clock p.m. that day;
That the sitting stand suspended until 1.00 o'clock p.m., when the Speaker shall cause the bells to ring for 15 minutes to call in the Members, following which the said recorded division or divisions shall be called, following which the House shall stand suspended until 3.00 o'clock p.m., at which time Statements by Members and Oral Questions will be called, followed by Routine Proceedings, following which the Speaker shall adjourn the House until 2.00 o'clock p.m., Wednesday, November 29, 1989; and
That, on Wednesday, November 29, 1989, the Orders of the Day shall be a non-votable Opposition motion as a Supply Proceeding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. Government House Leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate this afternoon on the second reading debate of Bill C-43, it is my intention to be brief because the points I have to make can be made simply and quickly.
I wish first of all to say that although I do not share their views I do respect the deeply held personal, religious, ethical and moral convictions of those who cannot bring themselves to support what I consider to be a woman's right to abortion.
During the federal general election last year it was my privilege to be invited into many homes in the riding of Edmonton East and in many of those homes I encountered constituents who devoutly believed that abortion was wrong. I do not in any way question the sincerity of those beliefs. Again, while not agreeing with them, I recognize them as legitimate beliefs held by those people.
However, in my opinion-and this opinion was arrived at over the course of years-the fundamental right of each Canadian woman to the security of person guaranteed her in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms overrides all other considerations in this matter.
If I may, I would like to quote Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person
and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with
the principles of fundamental justice.
I can conceive of no greater principle of fundamental justice than the right to control one's own body. The right to control one's body is inherent in each and every individual and so long as that individual can exercise that control then that right is indivisible.

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
Further, I think it must be recognized that no law adopted in this House which would have as its object the abridgement of that right, for that is what we are speaking of, could succeed. There is no law which we could fashion in this Chamber which would end abortion. It is a social impossibility. We know that from our experience during those years when there were such laws.
cause of interference in the Canadian judicial system. Other than such instances, and those where discoveries of deformed foetuses are made, it is indeed rare to the point of negligibility to find third trimester abortions. So, we can trust Canadian women to make proper moral decisions based on their circumstances, for they are the only ones who can know those circumstances as intimately as is necessary in this instance.
They did not serve to end abortion, Mr. Speaker. They did serve to end the lives of some women who sought abortions illegally because they had no choice, and again that would inevitably be the circumstance were we to pursue any kind of law that had as its object the curtailment of the fundamental right to security of the person.
Once again we would find ourselves in a situation where the lives of poor women-for it is they who would have no option-would be placed at risk. The return of the back alley butchers would once again mar our society. In those instances where such a law was effective, where women were forced to carry through to term babies they did not want, we would in most instances merely add to the 1,120,000 poor kids in Canada today, causing that cycle to repeat itself in ever greater degradation.
Further, the law that is before this House presents us with what can only be seen as a potential nightmare of litigation. Relying as it does on the opinion of a doctor, it invites the intervention of a contrary opinion of another doctor. Indeed, it conjures up images of anti-choice vigilante squads moving from doctor to doctor and from hospital to hospital attempting to intimidate doctors and thereby further restrict and reduce Canadian women's access to abortion, using a poorly crafted law as an instrument of terror against women.
Disgruntled ex-boyfriends, as was the case in the Daigle case, could challenge any doctor's opinion and could launch a third party court action. In fact, this bill will once again open up that very door to all kinds of civil litigation which the Supreme Court in its wisdom closed just last week. It would be a terrible error.
There is no need for such a law because it is a fundamental fact of our society that individual Canadian women are able to act as competent moral agents. We need not collect into this Chamber that decision-making capacity. Canadian women are perfectly capable of exercising it themselves. They can make those achingly complicated moral decisions.
The proof of this is in current practice where the overwhelming majority of abortions performed in Canada are performed early in the first trimester as soon as the pregnancy becomes known. In almost no instances, I assume, and certainly in none of which I am aware, has anyone undertaken a second or, God help us, a third trimester abortion for any other than the most horrible reasons in the face of the most horrible circumstances.
The one instance, in fact, which comes immediately to the minds of everyone in this Chamber is that of Chantal Daigle, who was forced into the second trimester be-
I think it must as well be made clear that nobody in this House, and of this I am certain, favours abortion. Nobody in this Chamber can honestly be said to want women to have abortions. The question that can legitimately be before this House is what steps ought properly be taken by a government concerned about this matter? How can a government concerned about reducing the incidence of abortion in Canada conduct public affairs such that that perfectly commendable goal is achieved?
You do not do it by attempting to ban abortions, as I have already argued. You do do it to the extent possible by making birth control devices and counselling widely, publicly and freely available. That is the only way you can do it.
But you have to acknowledge that even when such enlightened public policy is in full flower, there will still be errors, accidents and, God help us, violence against women. In those instances, the option of abortion must remain available at the sole discretion of the woman involved.

What we can do in that regard is to amend the Canada Health Act to guarantee access to every Canadian woman who may find herself seeking an abortion in Canada.
I note that there have been no abortions performed in Prince Edward Island since 1982. This is not because there were no women in Prince Edward Island seeking abortions. Far from it. It is because the women of Prince Edward Island were denied access in their province. That is a condition which must be rectified. It is a condition utterly unaddressed in this bill but it is a condition which must be rectified in the interests of Canadian women.
In summary, I would call on the House, in the name of Canadian women, to defeat this bill. Take positive measures to curtail the need for abortion and then the day may yet come when we can achieve that beautiful vision which animates the pro-choice movement in this country: Every mother a willing mother, every child a wanted child.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to take part in today's second reading debate on Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion.
I have been a member of this House since 1984 and I have addressed my colleagues on several occasions on the subject of abortion. I personally consider the fact that 65,000 abortions performed each year in Canada is a national tragedy. I have expressed that opinion here and at home in my Manitoba constituency of Dauphin-Swan River.
I consider myself, and I am sure my constituents know that I am as well, a pro-life member of Parliament, or, rather, an anti-abortion member of Parliament. I use the term anti-abortion rather than pro-life because I believe that labels have become a major contributor to the rancour in this most emotional of national debates. Pro-lifers are not anti-choice and as well, pro-choicers are not anti-life. So I am personally an anti-abortionist and my record in this House confirms that fact.
For example, on June 2 of 1987, I voted in favour of Private Members' Motion M-37 in the name of the member for Grey-Simcoe. The motion asked the government to consider amending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Section 7 to include unborn persons. That motion was lost by a vote of 89 to 62.
Government Orders
Once again in July of 1988, I had the opportunity to vote on several motions ranging from outright abortion on demand to calling for legal protection of unborn children from the moment of conception. I voted for the latter which reflected my belief that life begins at conception and that society must begin to recognize that fact.
It has often been said that every society is judged by the way it treats its weakest members. That particular amendment, once again in the name of the member for Grey-Simcoe, was defeated 118 to 105. That is an indication of strength of the anti-abortion feelings at that time in this House.
In a perfect world, there would be no need for abortions. Every pregnancy would be a wanted pregnancy and a happy pregnancy. Every child would be a wanted child and a happy child. But sadly, as we all know, we live in a very imperfect world. Society wants and needs laws to protect its citizens and as well, society requires laws that are a reflection of that society. I believe that Canada needs a law on abortion.
Since January of 1988 when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Section 251 of the Criminal Code, we have had no law to govern abortion. The reality of contemporary society is that certain women will seek abortion services.
Another important reality in Canada is the existence of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So in its 1988 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Section 251 of the Criminal Code, which dealt with abortion through therapeutic abortion committees at accredited hospitals, was in violation of Section 7 of the charter. That is, it violated the woman's right to security of the person.
As well, and this is very important, the Supreme Court also clearly indicated that Parliament should take into consideration society's interest in the foetus, the unborn child. So we now have before us Bill C-43. It comes under the Criminal Code because it is only through the Criminal Code that the Parliament of Canada can legislate on abortion.
Having no law, I believe, would potentially cause serious problems in Canada. The provision of health services is primarily a provincial responsibility; that is, the delivery and the operation of those services.

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
The Canada Health Act does not list specific medical services, so the individual provinces specify services to be available and specify access to those services. The absence of federal law could lead to critical variations across Canada in the provision of abortion services.
For example, one province's policy could be the exact opposite of that of a neighbouring province when dealing with abortion. It is my opinion that doing nothing was not an option.
Bill C-43 makes abortion a criminal offence unless the pregnancy would likely be a threat to the life or health of the woman, health considerations to include mental, physical and psychological health. The law undoubtedly places a large responsibility on Canada's medical community because such a determination would be based upon the opinion of a single practitioner.
However, I have great faith in the physicians of Canada. The Canadian Medical Association has developed policies on abortion. It has spent much time in debate developing those policies and I believe that association can be depended upon to act in the best interests of their patients.
As well, the decision to have an abortion must be an agonizing one for a woman. I say "must" because I cannot as a man purport to know what a woman goes through in making such a decision. However, as a legislator, I do know that we as a society cannot and must not send women who have or seek abortions to jail. Society must instead work toward a time when abortions are not required or are not even desired.
Abortion must not be dealt with as an isolated issue. Abortion solves no problems. In fact, it could create many new ones. Related and supportive social policy must be developed concurrently with any abortion legislation.
I am, therefore, pleased that a royal commission on new reproductive technology will study the causes, treatment and prevention of infertility, sterilization reversals and other reproductive health issues. As well, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has announced $500,000 per year over the next three years for research into family planning issues, including contraception and fertility problems.
At the same time, federal and provincial governments must continue to develop new policies and programs dealing with family violence, child sexual abuse and child care and must meet the challenge to address the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Of course, ultimately, the search for a better society rests with our young people. They must be provided with information and education so that they can hopefully avoid the mistakes that we have made.
The citizens of Canada expect leadership from their government. I believe that has been provided with the introduction of Bill C-43. Of course, it is impossible, considering the emotional feelings on both sides of this important issue, to develop a law that will satisfy everyone. As well, it would be fruitless to have a law that would not survive a court challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I could never have supported a bill that based access to abortion on the gestational model. Such an idea I find abhorrent. The logical extension of society's recognition of the increasing value of a developing foetus is to place less value on a life as it ages.
Therefore, I intend to support Bill C-43 at second reading. It does not totally reflect my own personal anti-abortion feelings. However, as a legislator, I feel duty bound to work toward developing laws that are constitutionally acceptable and will meet with the approval of tolerant and thoughtful Canadians. I feel that Bill C-43 accomplishes that purpose.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, over the decade during which I have had the privilege of sitting in this House, there have been many moments in which the House of Commons has risen to an occasion where it provided a sense of direction for the country and responded in a sometimes quite magnificent way to expectations, hopes and aspirations. Unfortunately, this is not one of those times.
It is a great sadness and disappointment to many Canadians that on an issue that affects so many of them in so many ways, that reaches into family life in such a profound way, the Parliament of Canada is not giving this country the kind of leadership that it requires. In this, I agree with the member from Dauphin-Swan River who just spoke.
November 23, 1989

I have been struck over the last three or four months, particularly after the events of last summer, by how many people in my own riding and across the country have spoken to me about this issue and have approached it in a way with some reason and dispassion, commitment, some with agony, some with clear questioning but in a certain spirit of trying to find a resolution to the problem. I think they were hoping that the Parliament of Canada through its members would find that avenue, that particular opening that would give them some sense that we are reaching a new plateau in public policy as it relates to this very crucial issue.
I would also say, after listening to the speeches made in this House over the last several days, that the feelings expressed by members also had within them the germs and ingredients of a kind of resolution. It has been quite fascinating to listen to the kind of personal commitments, real feelings of awareness and engagement that so many members have had in trying to again find a way of resolving what has been such an important and widespread debate in this country for such a long time.
The legislation before us falls far short of that mark. It is a serious and profound lack of leadership and direction. It is, as the minister who introduced it clearly called it, a compromise at a time when a compromise was not called for but something much broader, more comprehensive, more rational in dealing with an issue of such great significance.
This was not the time for the politically expedient answer. It was not the time to try to find the ways of patching together a temporary agreement among members of the cabinet to get legislation through to meet a statement that was made perhaps in haste by the Prime Minister last summer. In fact, the country was looking for a great deal more than that.
The legislation before us, the bill itself, as we know, is deeply flawed. Perhaps what bothers me most about it, is that it will create a whole new set of problems. I think the test of good legislation is whether it resolves a problem without creating a new generation of new problems. This legislation clearly does not meet that test.
This legislation opens up once again the possibility, the real potential of a number of new actions, of confusions, of court initiatives being taken by third parties against
Government Orders
doctors. It is not going to resolve any of the clear questions dealing with access that have been very much part of this debate, of a fair degree of equality and access for women across the country.
We are now going to be putting an onus, an intimidation on different medical practitioners in different parts of the country and basically putting them in the position that they may want to withdraw their services or not become engaged at all. The legislation is flawed.
We have seen since the Supreme Court decision the reaction of the legal fraternity which is to say that it creates once again a new legal problem for many Canadians. That is not good legislation which creates a whole new set of problems. It is not good legislation because once again we are using the Criminal Code as a way of providing punishment to those engaged in the very difficult choice, and it is a difficult choice. We are saying that the criminal system will punish those who disobey this legislation. That is a terrible, awful indictment of a society that uses the threat of prison or of a criminal judgment against such a personal deeply-felt act that involves so many questions of morality and nervousness.
I listened with interest to the speech made by the member from Edmonton East. He said that women have the right to make their choice, and I agree with him. But to say that they can make that choice in a calm atmosphere is not right. I have talked to people from the Pregnancy Crisis Centre in the city of Winnipeg. Often young women, unwed women in particular, are making choices full of anxiety, of a sense isolation, of being lonely. They are making a decision at a time in their lives when it is perhaps the most difficult time to make a decision because they are faced with a great world out there. All of a sudden, a pregnancy takes place and perhaps the boyfriend leaves, or there is no love in the relationship and they are left bereft of any support whatever. That is a very tough time to ask anyone to make a choice.
While I defend the right to make a choice, I also believe strongly that it cannot be a choice made in isolation. Choice does not mean licence. It does not mean to say a complete freedom to do as one wants. That is where again I think the approach taken by the government falls deeply short. There was such an opportunity to address some of the crucial problems faced by

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
women making a choice, an incredible sort of fear of "just how do I support a child?"
We live in a country that has a million children living in poverty, where 50 per cent of the people going to the food banks are young families with children. We have such a total breakdown and failure of family policy and we say nothing about it.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare says, "Well, I understand the problem," and offers $1.5 million and a couple of studies to deal with that basic breakdown of the family structure in this country and the support for families. What a terrible vacuum.
I listened to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Again, he gave a very heartfelt speech the other evening. He said that it is up to the churches to make this choice and totally absolved himself of any governmental responsibility whatsoever.
We in this Parliament cannot abdicate responsibility. Goodness knows, how can we be talking about the crucial fact of abortion when we know that many women face the choice of living in poverty, living with the prospect of their children being underfed and undereducated, of not having a chance in society. Do you think that does not affect their choice? Do you not think that that biases and distorts the choice that they are going to make? Of course it does. And yet we say nothing in this Parliament about it. It has nothing to do with the debate.
One good reason for voting against this bill and defeating it is to keep the pressure on the government to produce a decent family policy in Canada so that when women have to make a choice, they make a choice with a fair chance, with a proper system of support in this country. If we pass this legislation, then the thing gets forgotten and the pressure is off. For another 20 or 30 years, we can go on doing business as usual and not address what is becoming a national tragedy, embarrassment and serious handicap to the future of a million children or more in this country and that is a fact that they have not been given a proper chance in society. Surely Members of Parliament have to take that into account when they decide how to vote on this bill. They cannot, in any way, eliminate that broader question from the context in which a choice is going to be made by Members of Parliament.
The real question is how do you reduce abortions, how do you reduce the necessity of making those choices? As members have talked, and I have listened to most of the speeches, they have clearly signalled the fact that we need much better services. We need counselling for women. We need to make adoption a real legitimate choice.
My wife and I adopted a young boy four and a half years ago. He brought us enormous warmth and love and it is an incredible experience. I want to see this society do a lot more, not just to have children who are wanted but to have children who are needed in this society.
I do not see anything in this bill that says anything about that. I do not see anything that the government is doing to make that possible. In fact, what I saw three weeks ago, in the unemployment insurance bill, was the government bringing in a measure that clearly discriminated against adoptive parents. Yet, at the same time, its members have the nerve and gall to stand up and say, "We want to reduce the incidence of abortion," but they bring in an Unemployment Insurance Act which clearly contradicts that commitment.
I said in the House at that time to stay true to your beliefs. At least be consistent. The government ignored it. One minister stood up and said: "Well it does not matter. It does not count that we are discriminating against adoptive parents". Yet on the other hand we hear government members say: "But we want to reduce the incidence of abortion". That is hypocrisy. That is not fair.
That is one reason why I cannot vote for this legislation. I do not want to take the heat off this government. I want to keep the pressure on. I want to keep reminding government members every day that they owe an awful lot more to society to deal with this problem. We need much better legislation than this can produce.
If they would listen to the members of this House as they have spoken over the last two or three days, we could come up with a much better bill. I am not saying it would make everybody happy, because there are clear divisions on points of view between those two important values, one of which is right of women to make that choice in a society that has been dominated by males for so long. I do not think that we can compromise on that, but surely there is an awful lot more room to move in legislative terms, statutory terms, regulatory terms and
November 23, 1989

fiscal terms to create a social and economic system which would substantially reduce the need to have an abortion.
There was room for this Parliament to provide real leadership in the country and to meet the concerns of all those who have spoken, for the entire spectrum of opinion. But this legislation and this Parliament is failing terribly to provide that kind of leadership and that kind of direction for Canada when it is so desperately needed. For that reason, I will be voting against the bill.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, today on this debate addressing the issue of abortion, I am speaking for the fourth time in my parliamentary career on the right to life for the unborn.
In 1982, the Constitution of Canada was delivered to this country. Despite the fact that it did not have an amendment to it-which I and others of my ilk determined would be in the best interests of the unborn, namely, having a provision included to protect the rights and the life of the unborn-the constitution was repatriated.
With that repatriation, the Parliament of Canada lost its supremacy to the Supreme Court of Canada, and in 1984 this government inherited an abortion law which was struck down early in 1988 by the Supreme Court of Canada. In the intervening two years, the country has been without legislation.
I recognize that the government has the responsibility of governing this country. It has the responsibility of enacting legislation. It has the responsibility to lead. I also recognize that the government has the responsibility to enact legislation that will meet the test of the Supreme Court. Indeed the government of the day is, in fact, in a no-win situation because in my opinion there is no way that legislation can be introduced under the present conditions that will be acceptable to the majority of Canadians.
With this legislation, the government has come under fire from the pro-choice side which believes that any abortion law at all is an impediment to the rights of women. We have seen the pro-life side of the equation just as concerned about the legislation because that side maintains that it forsakes the right of life to the unborn and provides for abortion on demand.
Government Orders
There are for us who are pro-life three positive aspects to this legislation which I have had to take under very serious consideration. First, by placing the legislation in the Criminal Code, it identifies the act of committing abortion as a criminal act and indeed this is important. Second, the exception to this provision is that an abortion can only be accepted with respect to a decision taken by a medical practitioner with the advice and consent of that medical practitioner as it relates to the health of the mother. Third, as it does not identify a gestation period, and although I am not a lawyer, it would occur to me that there could be a basis now to determine through the procedure of the courts that life indeed does begin at conception which would go a long way to identifying with the crisis in which the pro-life people find themselves.
In my opinion if this legislation were on the books, it might be a good thing from the point of view of the pro-lifers to start the process through the courts and deal with the process through changes to the constitution. If, indeed, the legislation is not passed, the field of abortion may be opened as it is now to those people who have made a career out of taking the lives of the unborn.
However, the legislation has unfortunately fatal flaws. These same provisions that I refer to which give support to those who support life and recognize that the unborn needs legislative protection are indeed the very same concerns that are a deep and grave concern to me. The legislation provides that an abortion may be provided if the mental, physical or psychological health of the mother is threatened. In the legislation nobody has determined what psychological health is, nobody has identified what mental health is. This legislation clearly moves beyond the provision that the life of the mother is the only acceptable condition whereby an abortion may be permitted in the event of distress.
Because the gestational period is not identified the problem becomes, when is it acceptable not to perform an abortion? My grave concern is that with the knowledge that life can be sustained at 23 weeks-at 23 weeks a child may be bom prematurely-that life is now threatened under this proposed law because it simply provides open-ended abortion which could be inter-

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
preted by some as being permitted right up to the moment of birth. Nobody, I am sure, in this House would condone or support that type of situation but, nonetheless, that is what we are faced with.
And what constitutes a medical practitioner in this country and what constitutes the direction of that medical practitioner? Does it mean that somebody in an office in Toronto can supervise, under his direction, a team of abortionists in Halifax? Does it mean that we will indeed be in a position in the future to see abortionists, people who are in that business, establish abortion clinics much the same as we have McDonald's franchised across this country, or Burger King? That, too, is a very real possibility.
I appreciate the govenrment's difficulties in trying to come to some solution to this anguishing question. And it is likely that this law, if it was passed, could meet the constitutional challenge. In principle it could be argued that the rights of the unborn are protected but, in fact, in the practicalities of practice this legislation clearly does nothing for the life of the unborn.
My position remains as it has been for the number of years that I have represented my constituents in this Chamber. I have always maintained that abortion is not acceptable as a means of birth control and that we must act to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I say that innocent lives are being destroyed, lives that have value and worth. I just want to read, in the last few moments of my time, a letter from a constituent of mine which I think sums it up very nicely.
He says: "My wife and I are the foster parents of three adopted children. Our three children should have been destroyed in their mothers' wombs, so the abortionists would have us believe. Two were bom to unmarried girls and the other was bom to a woman separated from her husband. How grateful we are that their mothers decided not to destroy them. They have brought great joy to our lives and enhanced the lives of many other people. My wife and I implore you to enact laws that will protect the unborn at all stages of development."
What I see before us today is legislation that meets the requirements of constitutional challenge and court challenge and the requirement as well of those who want
virtually unimpaired access to abortion. Unfortunately, I see nothing that meets the requirements of those who would be denied birth and life.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible in ten minutes to consider all the details of Bill C-43, its implications, its medical and legal advice, but let me at the outset say that as someone who believes that the lives of the unborn should be protected I believe the bill is very weak and I believe too that it is badly flawed in its protection for the unborn.
Let me first deal with what I believe are the positives. I am pleased that the justice minister has included it in the Criminal Code. This reaffirms that the performance of abortion is a criminal act. Second, I am no less pleased that the minister did not use the gestational approach. Third, it implies the recognition of human life from conception and that the unborn child does have intrinsic value.
The negative aspects are many. For conviction, the sentence is two years. The taking of an innocent life should demand a much stiffer sentence, say 10 or 15 years. An abortion could be performed for health reasons defined as including physical, mental and psychological health. This is almost abortion on demand. Health is defined basically in a manner which cannot be verified. Therefore, would recurring headaches during pregnancy be sufficient reason for an abortion?
Consultation with only one medical practitioner is another weakness. Surely the woman should be expected to consult at least two medical doctors. It should be a requirement that the doctor or the doctors give written advice and a written report as to why, in his or her opinion, an abortion was deemed necessary.
I find it repugnant that Parliament, representing society, is even debating the issue of abortion. Abortion should not be illegal; it should be unthinkable. Abortion is society's declaration that we have no desirable future as a people, as humanity, as a society.
More and more we find ourselves on the slippery slope of decadence from violence and drugs and sex in relativism and situational ethics. The so-called pro-choice argument postulates the right of a woman to control her own body. What is the legitimate right that allows the
November 23, 1989

pain and thus the ultimate death of an innocent human being?
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
I suppose it is a foregone conclusion that if we all accepted the premise that "everyone" included the unborn then this debate would not be taking place here today. Consider the following statement made by Jules Carles, director of research at France's National Centre for Scientific Research:
The first cell formed by sperm-egg union is already the embryo of an autonomous living being with individual hereditary patrimony. Such that, if we knew the nature of the spermatozoid and the chromosomes involved we could already, at that point, predict the characteristics of the child, the future colour of his hair and the illness to which he would be subject. In his mother's womb he will form, he will not accept everything she brings to him, but only that which is necessary to his existence. Therefore he will realize his hereditary patrimony. In that first cell the dynamism and the precise direction of life appears. In spite of its fragility and its immense needs, an autonomous and genuinely living being has come into existence-
The law must therefore aim at protecting the rights of the unborn from the moment of its conception, not merely from some subsequent point of human development. The law must set its face against functional definitions of personhood. People function as humans because they are human; they do not become human by performing human functions-
Mr. Troy Weber, who wrote to me on the subject of fundamental issues inherent to abortion, stated:
The scientific, genetic criteria speak plainly. The foetus is a human being from the moment of conception.
Since we cannot refute the argument that the foetus is a human being from the moment it is conceived, and since the medical community and the genetic information we have received from it both concur with the argument that the foetus is a human being from the moment of conception, our most logical recourse is to accept that the foetus is a human being at conception.
Mr. Speaker, I agree. From the time of my first nomination meeting in March of 1978 and through four federal elections I have made public my views on abortion. It is on the record back home and it is on the record in this chamber that I am pro-life and anti-abortion. The easiest course of action then for me to take
Government Orders
would be to vote against the bill. It will be difficult for me to vote "yes" at second reading and I will do so reluctantly. But let me tell you why I expect to do so.
I will work diligently with other pro-life members to bring in amendments, both in committee and at report stage, to strengthen this bill. Some of my constituents have told me to do everything in my power to defeat Bill C-43 because a bad law is worse than none. I do not think I am going to buy that logic. This law is better than none at all. Not for a moment do I believe that the majority of my constituents want a lawless society. No law on the books is truly abortion on demand.
I recognize the fact that this is the position of many members in this House. It occurs to me that if I and other like-minded MPs cannot pass a pro-life bill then I must do everything in my power to restrict the number of abortions that occur and the wanton destruction of life.
In conclusion, I want to throw out a challenge to the churches because it is mostly they who demand pro-life legislation. The challenge to them is that they provide counselling and, more than that, that they provide facilities and financial assistance with the love that goes with it for women who are facing this dilemma.


Ms. Albina Guamieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of abortion is not for the timid. In general, legislators have displayed a great deal of frailty and evasiveness by refusing to confront what must surely be called the ethical, social and political quagmire of our time. The verdict of this House will determine the value which our society places on human life itself and the very foundation upon which all our laws are based.
In the past it had been possible for those who wished to avoid taking responsibility for their decisions to hide behind the neutrality of the courts. Recent legal decisions have shown that there can be little neutrality on an issue which deals with the primary concept of life. Since the previous legislation was struck down, individual judges were forced into making complicated legal decisions based on their personal and independent interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have recently witnessed how the community and the courts

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
were left twisting in the wind because of this government's legislative paralysis.
The decision as to which life merits protection cannot be left to judges, doctors, or even women themselves. The issue must be dealt with on a national level by Parliament so that we as elected representatives may once and for all establish the supremacy of life and the protection of the unborn as would befit a civilized society. We must not be condemned by a future Parliament for legitimizing the termination of hundreds of thousands of unborn Canadians.
This fall the nation was embroiled in controversy. As a result, this government has been forced to hastily draft an abortion law in an attempt to fill the legislative void. The presentation of this bill must be classified as the worst kind of chicanery because Bill C-43, as written, is obviously not intended to be enforced. This bill will not prevent a single abortion, nor was this its objective. Yet it is still being fraudulently marketed as a compromise. On the one hand, this government tells us that abortion is illegal and, on the other, it outlines succinctly how the law can be circumvented in every case.
Bill C-43 is abortion on demand with red tape. The definition of health has been given the widest possible interpretation. One of the authors of this bill admitted in this House that Bill C-43 entitles women to abortion under a wide variety of circumstances. In effect, the legislation makes it possible for women to seek and obtain abortions for reasons that may have more to do with lifestyle considerations than with actual physical endangerment.
In fact, the health clause will operate as nothing more than a rubber stamp condonement of abortion on demand. It will allow women to abort their unborn child based on the fleeting notion of immediate convenience. But life itself is not convenient. Many of the mundane decisions we make on a daily basis are not expedient but we are forced to make them. The value of life is not a function of convenience. Our society grants those who are legally regarded as persons the right to life, liberty and security of person.
We must remember that even during this century the rights of women were severely abridged. We had to fight for what are now considered basic human rights. It was only when social attitudes changed that we were granted full personhood before the law. Thus it would seem incumbent upon those of us who until fairly recently
were denied full legal status and protection to extend those same rights to the unborn.
By the simplest definitions available to us, a foetus should qualify for personhood. But as history has proven, the attributes necessary for the granting of legal status can be arbitrary, capricious and discretionary. The argument that this debate is a conflict between the rights of women and the rights of the foetus is political in nature. The mother has size, voice, legal recognition and voting power. The foetus has none of these endowments. It must rely on others for protection. Accordingly, it is granted not even the most minimal of protections under C-43.
As legislators we now have the duty to examine the basis upon which our laws are founded. We must re-examine why we as a society have outlawed crimes such as homicide. We condemn them not because they are socially or economically destabilizing, but because we recognize the intrinsic value of human life. Our laws are not simply non-aggression pacts between participants, but make some attempt to develop universal social standards. The tragedy of this bill is that it fails to address and grant the logical extension of the recognition of the intrinsic value of life to the foetus. It does not make any attempt to defend the weak, but merely caters to the agenda of the strong.
We must channel the energy and passion which surrounds this debate into dealing with our collective social responsibility for the well-being and security of our fledgling generation. Those of us who wish to protect the unborn must also understand, however, that the role of government cannot stop with merely enacting protective legislation. We must also deal with the true challenge of confronting and changing the social attitudes which so often lead to abortion.
Society must learn to accept the responsibility for caring for unwanted births by providing the social support systems which are so desperately needed by pregnant women. These women are often alone, abandoned and trapped by their predicament.
Our governments have failed on many accounts to provide the necessary structural environment to assist women to deal with the existing social inequities. They have failed to provide child care spaces, adequate funding for shelters for abused women, and the counselling
November 23, 1989

and education programs necessary to alleviate women of the traditional male-female economic disparities.
It must therefore be our responsibility as a caring and just society to protect and nurture mother and child through the full development of human life, both before and after birth. To merely impose an ethical judgment on the backs of the vulnerable members of society without compensating social support would be both cruel and irresponsible. Those of us who are compelled to champion the unborn cannot be indifferent to the needs of those who have survived birth. We cannot make our ethical and social decisions in a vacuum.
Sadly, the proposed legislation is seriously flawed because it makes no attempt to balance the rights of the unborn with those of the mother. The bill before us sets such a small bounty on the life of the unborn that even the lamest excuses of the mother will be accepted. We, as legislators, must learn to embrace the foetus as an equal member of society. To imperiously determine which life should be afforded protection of the law and which should not would leave our society extremely susceptible to the social decision-making characteristic of the genocidal policies of certain Third World nations.
We must not allow ourselves the arrogance of so easily denying life. We do not have that right. No one carries the truth in his pocket. If we are to err in our judgment let us err on the side of life.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing (Mr. Axworthy)-Proposed Goods and Services Tax; the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Government Orders
Guilbault)-Dairy Industry; the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Auditor General's Report.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate on Bill C-43 there is probably little else that can be added to the substance of either side of this sensitive issue that has not already been raised.
During the last two elections there was probably no question put to candidates running for office more frequently than "What is your position on abortion?" I stated my pro-life views clearly in 1984 and again in 1988 so that my constituents knew my position before they voted for me. I was among the members in this House who supported the pro-life amendment on motion M-37 during the last Parliament.
Those of us who sit as members in this House come from every area of Canada. We come from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. We come from different walks of life and different religions. It is because of these differences that this place is interesting, challenging, frustrating and, at times, most difficult.
In dealing with the abortion issue it is these differences, personal views and family values that each of us has developed which shapes and determines our individual position on this issue. Despite the eloquent debate on either side of the abortion issue-and I have been listening to the many eloquent speeches on either side-few, if any, members I am sure will be persuaded to change their position.
The difficult decision for many of us is whether or not we can support a bill that is not our preferred choice in legislation. This bill does not contain everything most of us would like to see encompassed in legislation. It contains clauses that I am personally uncomfortable with.

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
We failed as members to reach a consensus in June 1988. If that exercise proved anything, it showed us that there is no more consensus in Parliament than there is throughout the country. Few if any of us will ever see the legislation we personally want survive this House and meet the test of the Charter. The Supreme Court can strike down any unconstitutional law. It has become apparent to me that my personal choice is unconstitutional.
I admit that Bill C-43, in my view at least, allows abortions in too wide a variety of circumstances. The latitude under the definition of "health", both mental and psychological, creates great difficulty for me. The determination of psychological health I am afraid will not be made, in many cases, by medical practitioners who are specialists in that field.
I have heard it said by some that no law is better than the bill that we have before us today. I cannot agree with that. No matter how minimal the protection, if pause for further consideration of the consequences by a woman and her doctor results, that alone is worth making an effort to achieve. Flawed, in my view, as this bill is, it will reinforce the principle that human life has a unique value. To have no law suggests that unborn life has no value at all.
Colleagues on the other side of this issue will not be persuaded to change their views because of my arguments, nor will I by theirs. I would hope, however, that they would fully consider supporting this bill at second reading. To defeat the bill at this stage would not give Canadians all of the opportunities available under the parliamentary process to attempt those changes and improvements that many of us feel could be implemented in this legislation. Regardless of their position, I think that there is little to be lost and perhaps much to be gained by giving a legislative committee the chance to consider amendments and conduct hearings. With this in mind I will support this bill at second reading.
Statistics are cold hard facts that are often filed away and forgotten. In 1988 between 73,000 and 74,000 therapeutic abortions took place in Canada. If the procedure that has become so commonplace today had been so readily available in the past, how much different might our country and our world have been. What if the mother of a Picasso, a Mozart or a Churchill had the
opportunity for easy access to terminate unwanted pregnancy?
If economic factors played a role, how many of us in this House who were bom during the depths of the Depression might not be here today? How many members bom during the 1940s were raised alone by their mother while their father was serving for his country? No doubt they were an inconvenience and created a hardship and economic difficulties for a single parent. How many of us sitting in this chamber today were at one point in our past an unwanted pregnancy? Can any of us smugly say that is not an option our mothers would have considered? Think about it.
I ask each member sitting in this House to reflect upon the circumstances their own mothers faced a few months before they were bom. Ask yourself if, given the choice, might she have made the same decision 73,000 Canadian women made last year. Today you are a member of Parliament. You could have been a statistic.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this very important debate. If I may be forgiven the expression, I think this is one debate and one issue on which we as Members of Parliament are certainly earning our keep, given the volume and the emotion of interventions by constituents and many others, and indeed the need to probe very deeply within our own convictions on where we actually stand on this particular piece of legislation.
I would also like to thank all other members for their very thoughtful speeches from which I have learned a lot. It is a debate that many of us will remember for a long time.
What we see here is a clash between two very profound, and in many ways, equally compelling values. The one set of values grows from the women's movement which, in my mind, has been the most progressive and powerful social movement of this century in Canada. Many of the people who have taken up the cause of women's rights are genuine inheritors of the legacy of people like Agnes MacPhail and Nellie McClung in seeking not only equality, but the liberation that goes beyond simple equality for women. It is not only the ideology of a movement that propels them, but a real

sense of the reality of many women's lives, especially in the era of backroom butchers.
On the other hand, there is a strong feeling of respect for life that many of us share, and my own case, it grows from the traditions of the Mennonite Church, the Anabaptists movement going back to the 16th century.
We have tried to be consistent about respect for life. As a people we have always opposed capital punishment, although there have been individual people who held opposing views. We have taken a pacifist role, a non-resistant role in times of conflict. The need to respect life goes back many centuries in our family and, indeed, my own being.
I talked to many women in trying to come to terms with this particular piece of legislation. I talked to them as a Member of Parliament and somebody who had to make a decision here, knowing how irritating it is for many women to hear so many male voices talking about this issue. They opened up on this issue because they feel very strongly about it, whether they considered themselves pro-choice or pro-life. What surprised me in those conversations is how many women that I knew and knew well, many of whom came from what might be considered or called good homes with a religious upbringing and so on, had actually had abortions, many of them illegal and many of them outside of the country.
I listened to these women. From what I heard, the presence or absence of a particular abortion law was the least of factors in their decision. What precipitated their choice was in fact the circumstances of their lives and what they saw as the potential future for themselves and their child.
Therefore, it seemed increasingly clear to me that if we in this place are serious about reducing the numbers of abortions in this country and reducing unwanted pregnancies, we must address all the factors involved. We must give serious priority, for example, to the issue of child poverty, on which we are having a debate tomorrow. Our leader's last speech will be on child poverty, and it will be worth listening to and acting on by all of us.
The abuse of women and children in this country must come to an end. I, as a Member of Parliament, had a case this summer where I had no option that I could pursue to
Government Orders
prevent a 14-year-old girl from going home to a community and a home where her 16-year-old brother was going to sexually abuse her. I could find no recourse to keep that girl from going back. If that girl became pregnant, I would not want to make the moral choice on what should be done in that situation.
Then there is the whole question of adoption, which is certainly a positive alternative, but is really mired in a morass of bureaucracy and a totally inhumane approach to family structures, especially in cultures that are not mainstream cultures.
We do not have training and support for young mothers. We do not have a national child care policy. We do not have safe and effective birth control, at least to any kind of standards that today's science can make possible. We do not have adequate sex education in many schools. We do not have adequate family planning. The role of men in this is all too often ignored.
As well, any legislation that I could personally support would have to include, first of all, the right of conscientious objection for all health care professionals who disagree with a particular law. Second, it would have to have equal effect for all women in this country, be they rich or poor, and in whatever community they happen to live.
Therefore, I have decided that I would not support any legislative initiative on abortion that did not come to terms with these priorities and would leave them unaddressed.
In fact it seems to me that it is morally inconsistent for people who say that they want to see fewer abortions to put more energy and commitment into lobbying for a strict abortion law than they put into the struggle for better lives for women and children. Indeed, I have observed with some sadness that some of the members of this House who are most adamant in insisting that the full weight of criminal law should be brought to bear on women in these circumstances are also the most ardent supporters of Margaret Thatcher's vision of a dog-eat-dog world and the social Darwinism that goes with it.
Therefore, I cannot in good conscience even try to sort out the deep moral and ethical questions which surround this issue until such a time as a genuinely humane and caring attitude towards women and children permeates

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
everything we do in this House. I will therefore join my caucus colleagues in opposing this bill.
In closing, I would like to thank all the women who shared their feelings and experiences with me, as difficult as it often was for all of us. I would especially like to thank three women. One, a sister in Prince Albert, in this case a nun who offered to pray for my faith, an offer I gratefully accepted. Second, another sister in the city of Prince Albert, this time a working woman, who asked me point blank if she could count on me not to sell out women on this issue. I would like to place on the record that I promised that woman that no woman would ever go to jail for having an abortion because of anything I did as a legislator.
Last, I would like to gratefully acknowledge the role of the member for New Westminster-Burnaby for her understanding, her sincerity and calm in the face of immense pressures. As the critic on this issue in our caucus she has to take much of the credit, along with our leader and others who participated in genuine debate. But this was really spearheaded by the member for New Westminster-Burnaby. In spite of the profound differences of philosophy which certainly are there in our caucus, her depth of character and the scope of her concern for humanity was enident.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that many of us have struggled with for a considerable period of time not only as politicians but as individuals. In my own case, as a former municipal politician in metropolitan Toronto, representing a constituency of 560,000 people for five elections and 11 years, I have had to take a position on it since 1972.
In every election I have run in I have had a number of people calling and asking my position and telling me that they would not vote for me if I was in favour of permitting abortion. We all have had that experience.
As a member of the Metro Toronto Community Services and Housing Committee in the North York Board of Health, I again had to make decisions which were the subject of heavy lobbying regarding abortion and contraception counselling programs.
Perhaps the most difficult forum in which I had to deal with this issue was at the board of directors and executive committee of the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto. That society takes the position
that it can never support abortion under any circumstance because it is firmly of the opinion that another child is involved. The society views this as a fundamental tenet of Catholicism and one of the major reasons for having a separate society.
However, in every instance that I am aware of, when a ward of the society went before a judge requesting an abortion, the judge granted the child an abortion. In one seminar that the board held the matter was debated by theologians and one of the situations that we had struggled with as a board was discussed. This case involved a 13-year old child who was the victim of incest who was threatening to commit suicide if she was forced to have the baby.
One theologian felt that in that particular instance he would interpret the teachings of the church that permit abortions in instances where the mother's life is in danger to the greatest degree possible and permit the abortion.
Several members of the board immediately and angrily protested such an interpretation of the church's position. In their view, that 13-year old victim's mental anguish was not a sufficient reason to permit her to have an abortion.
There are a great many other people whom I know and greatly respect who have equally adamant views on this issue. Many are caring and compassionate people, as indeed are all the members of the CCAS board. Some of them lead truly exemplary lives and have adopted and/or fostered many children because of their deep desire to help less fortunate children.
I strongly believe they are entitled to their Children's Aid Societies, their schools and hospitals and their way of life and beliefs. That is why as a board member I supported the board's position. However, I do not feel that that viewpoint can survive at all in the real world. Just as that 13-year old victim who was freed from her horrible situation by a judge who said that it is wrong in Canada to force a child to bear a child, so too in the real world the subjugation and enslavement of women, the deprivation of freedom of choice that is implied by such an act could not possibly survive in a free society. The anti-abortionists' views are best left as moral convictions to be practised by those who share them.
November 23, 1989

As an elected official my consistent position has been that I am personally opposed to abortion, but I feel that it is fundamentally important that women not be deprived of the right to choose. I have always said that I am not for abortion on demand and have refused to be labelled as pro-choice because I simply do not agree with the position so well enunciated by those members who feel that no legislation is necessary except for legislation which makes access to abortion mandatory in every town and rural district in Canada.
The proposed law provides the opportunity for women to choose whether or not to have a child based on a reasonably thoughtful process, and in conjunction with the medical profession. While it does not legislate access, it does improve access. The law makes abortions illegal except when they are performed by a medical doctor who has reached the medical opinion that the woman's health or life is likely to be in danger. Health is interpreted as physical, mental or psychological.
In the first place, I do not think that there are any reasons that women have abortions that cannot be considered as health reasons that would qualify under these provisions. Women do not undertake the decision to have an abortion lightly. Women do not have abortions for socio-economic reasons. Some women have abortions because their particular socioeconomic positions are so stressful that an additional child would make their personal situation so intolerable that they could not cope.
The law requires doctors to develop the medical opinion. This must be in accordance with the standards of their profession. We have received a preliminary report from the Canadian medical profession describing what they are. I was pleased to read these and will listen to the presentation of the CM A with great interest at the legislative committee. I think they are very reassuring to many people.
First of all, the CMA interprets abortion as the act of termination of the pregnancy before foetal viability. The CMA has stressed that beyond the stage where the foetus is capable of an independent existence the termination of pregnancy is indicated only under exceptional circumstances. They also say that it should not used as an alternative to contraception. They say the patient should be provided with the option of full and immediate
Government Orders
counselling services in the event of an unwanted pregnancy. They say a physician should not be compelled to participate in the termination of a pregnancy, and that a physician whose moral or religious beliefs prevent him or her from recommending or performing an abortion should inform the patient of such so that she may consult another physician. Many people have concerns about the fact that under this legislation abortions could conceivably be in the latter stages of pregnancy. Doctors in Canada will not do abortions too late in the pregnancy without very severe reasons.
The legislation does not currently set a mandatory deadline for an abortion but medical standards do. Similarly, the concerns about counselling, as I have already mentioned, have been addressed. There is a flexibility in the approach that can adjust to future medical developments. At present, amniocentesis can only be done at the twentieth week and a confirmatory amniocentesis and subsequent abortion can take up to the twenty-second week. Medical science could shorten that timespan considerably in the future.
With respect to the question of access, the law will certainly improve the situation. It makes abortion illegal except where a medical practitioner believes that the continuation of the pregnancy would, or is likely to, threaten the life or the physical, mental or psychological health of the patient. I suspect that particularly given the previous Morgentaler decision, it will be very difficult for any provincial government to prohibit doctors performing a legal medical procedure, or to limit funding to only abortions approved in hospitals. That is an issue I want to explore in the legislative committee.
I very much object to the idea of doctors or nurses being forced to participate in abortions against their will, or a hospital board being forced to provide abortion services in a hospital against its will. Abortion does not represent an ordinary medical service. There are many people in Canada who have deeply held moral convictions on this issue that must be respected. This law, however, makes it much more possible for individual medical doctors to provide this service in clinics. The law is necessary to establish a national standard and to clearly state that the decision to authorize an abortion is based on medical reasons after a consultation with the patient.

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
One final point I would like to make is that permitting abortions in this fashion also ensures that women are free to choose to have the child. If abortions were made illegal and in some strange authoritarian society women were not able to choose to have a child, but were forced to continue their pregnancies, the tremendous joy of having a wanted child who is welcomed into the world as a blessing would be lost.
I think of the great joy I have had in my daughter. I think of other friends and relatives who have grappled with the issue and have chosen life. It is a good law and I look forward to considering it further.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak in this historic debate this afternoon. We as legislators have a very important role to play in crafting a new abortion law for Canada.
I am of the firm belief that life begins at conception, and that the state has the responsibility to protect that life. Indeed, Mr. Justice Beetz wrote in the decision of January 28, 1988: "Parliament is justified in requiring a reliable, independent and medically sound opinion in order to protect the state interest in the foetus". Further, he stated, "Parliament requires this independent opinion because it is not only the woman's interest that is at stake in a decision to authorize an abortion".
I am here in this Chamber today by the good graces of the people of Canada. I believe the majority of my constituents are pro-life and they have elected me knowing that I too was pro-life. Like many other members, I have received over 3,000 letters in the last month urging me to follow my conscience and protect the unborn. I believe that I can do no less.
I have listened to many sincere speeches by members from both sides of this House. On Tuesday night, the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources outlined his reasons for supporting this particular bill. I listened and I was moved.
But I am very troubled by the dilemma we face. It is this law or no law. It is an unfortunate and negative situation. It is also one that I cannot accept. If we support the bill for second reading, it means that we support the bill in principle. I believe this means that we
support abortion on demand. If we compromise on life itself, what is next?
Each of us represents a special interest group, a group whose issue we speak out on. It could be farmers, seniors citizens, women, or small business people. Who speaks out for the unborn, those who have no voice? What interest group could be more special than a child as yet unborn? It is a crime to destroy the eggs of certain birds, yet it is acceptable to destroy a human being.
I share the views of my hon. friends for Leeds-Grenville and Bruce-Grey who spoke eloquently this week. The member for Leeds-Grenville mentioned that back in history if a woman was to be executed and was found to be pregnant the execution was delayed so that the baby could be born. Two people were involved, Mr. Speaker, not one.
I am not a lawyer or a university professor or someone who pretends to have all the answers. I am just a human being who listens to my constituents and follows my conscience. We hear about the limits on what may or may not be legal when it comes to abortion. We hear what may or may not be acceptable. We hear about what may or may not be worthy of a choice. Is morality not supposed to be a consideration? I believe that it should be.
I acknowledge that it is extremely difficult to impose morality in a law. Laws are supposed to be clear, objective, sterile and without emotion. For me, the issue of abortion is different. Anyone can hire a lawyer to try his or her case, but who speaks for the unborn? Perhaps that is the issue: Who speaks for the unborn? Our obligation as human beings is to protect the lives of others who are in no position to do so.
In the 122 years since Confederation, Parliament has never debated or voted on a question of such moral gravity. To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill's famous saying, we could say for Canada, with no fear of exaggeration, that never did so many human lives depend so much on so few.
This week we are debating a compromise bill. Some positive points can be seen in the new government bill.
November 23, 1989

However, the legislation has three negative aspects: any doctor can approve and perform an abortion at any time during the course of the mother's pregnancy. Second, the doctor is not required to verily the reasons for approving the abortion; and the abortion may be performed if, in the opinion of the doctor, the health or life of the mother likely would be threatened. Health reasons are very loosely defined as physical, mental or psychological. I believe that the undeniable and elementary right of the human person, the right to life from conception to death, would be gravely wounded if this proposed legislation is enacted.
Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of the public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent. This is all the more so since those lives which are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves.
We hear often in this House concerning protection of minority rights, of French or English-speaking people, for example. We have multicultural bills to protect ethnic minorities. But what of the unborn? Who speaks for them?
Legislation to protect the unborn is just the first step. If we enact legislation, any legislation, we as a people then have a responsibility to offer support to the women with unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. Social programs must be enhanced and more and better counselling services offered. The full range of alternatives, including adoption, must be explained. Housing and child care access must be improved upon. Above all, we need education to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
As I stated before, we who consider ourselves pro-life are torn terribly by the notion that if it isn't this law, it is no law. The arguments put forward by the ministers of energy and transport are very persuasive. However, it seems to me that Bill C-43 shows no purpose or direction. If I vote for it on second reading to send it to committee, then I accept it in principle. I say very profoundly that I am unable to do that.
I have rhetorically asked throughout my remarks: "Who speaks for the unborn?" I believe that we must speak for the unborn. This is the most personal, moral issue we could ever face. Life and death issues are incredibly difficult to translate into barren words, to be placed within a specific piece of legislation.
Government Orders
Birth is a miracle. I can only think of my own five grandchildren and the day each of them were bom, gently holding their delicate hands, looking into their newbom eyes as they look back at you with a sense of wonder and trust, and finally holding their fragile bodies in your arms. It is an experience bom of a miracle. Life is so precious we must protect it. We must speak for the unborn. This is not a perfect world nor a completely moral or ethical world, but surely we must strive for it to be so.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this very important subject of abortion.
I approach the subject today from the aspect of 30 years in family practice in medicine. In that time, I have seen the advent and development of the birth control pill, the acceptance of surgical sterilization as a legal right, I have witnessed the sexual revolution and its diverse consequences, and I have witnessed the changes in the legal status and frequency of abortions. I have seen this in the context of the family unit and seen its effect on the functioning of that unit which is a basic building block of our society.
This is a very good bill in many ways. It has been arrived at in a way that I hope will set a precedent in establishing other new legislation. It is essentially a middle of the road bill in the fact that it has received criticism from both extremes. It is a good political document as it provides the answers that many Canadian people have been looking for in this serious national question of abortion.
The big problem, however, is that abortion is not only a political question, but it is also a bio-ethical question. In other words, it should be based, not only on good political but also good biological and ethical principles as well. I believe this is what the legislation lacks. I think it is worth while to look at those principles that are relevant to the question of abortion.
When the sperm and the egg unite they produce a single cell containing the blueprint for a complete new life. That single cell is a new life and it soon doubles, quadruples, and multiplies many times over. It is not long before the cells start to differentiate and show the characteristics different from that of the original cell. It is not many weeks before it can be identified as a human embryo and not some other member of the animal kingdom. Some people have compared the foetus with an acorn, claiming it only has the potential to form in the

November 23, 1989
Private Member's Business
one case an adult human and in the other a mighty oak tree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must interrupt the hon. member because it is five o'clock. He will have eight minutes left in debate when we get back to the orders of the day.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT MARINE TRANSPORTATION COSTS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of extending the Western Grain Transportation Act to include marine transportation costs incurred between Thunder Bay and salt water, along with an elimination of the 100 per cent cost-recoveiy requirements of the seaway.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present for debate my private member's motion which you have just read into the record.
Since I came to this House, in fact even before then, I have been concerned about the impact of the Western Grain Transportation Act on the economy of the port of Thunder Bay and the ports along the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway.
Prior to 1984,1 appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport which was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the changes to the Crow benefit and replacing it with the WGTA. At that time in Winnipeg, my colleague for Regina-Lumsden was there, I made a presentation to argue for protection for the Port of Thunder Bay and the Port of Vancouver, a protection that was subsequently placed into the WGTA requiring that rail transportation subsidies be paid only on those commodities that were being processed through the ports of Vancouver or Thunder Bay and obviously, in turn, Churchill and Prince Rupert as well.
My involvement with the whole concept of grain movement goes back for a number of years now, because it is very important to the community that I represent, the Port of Thunder Bay. The Standing Committee on Transport has been seized with the issue of the viability of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system for a number of years now. We had hoped to complete our work this fall but we were sidetracked, if I can use that term, to deal with the question of VIA Rail. We did not get back to the seaway but we will continue our work on that.
It is important to note that the seaway is in trouble. There are a multitude of solutions that have been suggested. What I am proposing today are two of them that I believe are worth considering. They are probably the two easiest to deal with, both in terms of the economics involved and the politics of 1989.
The first is the inclusion of domestic marine transportation costs under the WGTA. As some members will know, the way the WGTA was designed in terms of the subsidy component was ,in effect, to equalize the distance-related costs for moving grain from the farm gate to the port of Thunder Bay or to the port of Vancouver. What has happened, and it has equalized it even though the run to Thunder Bay is downhill, is that the turnaround time is 14 days; that is, from the grain car from the Prairie elevator to Thunder Bay unloaded, deposited in the elevator and back to the Prairie elevator, while for Vancouver and Prince Rupert, the time ranges from 18 to 21 days.
Second, the trip to Vancouver is uphill through the mountains and through a very congested port system that creates inefficiencies in terms of the movement of that particular commodity. The WGTA did equalize that. If the producer in middle Saskatchewan was sending his or her grain east or west, the cost was the same, whether it was 500 miles from Thunder Bay or 500 miles from Vancouver.
What was not taken into consideration was the additional cost for the eastern movement, the cost of the marine transport from Thunder Bay to Baie Comeau, Port Cartier, Halifax, Quebec City, Sorel or Trois Rivieres. That is purported to be in the range of $23 to $25 per tonne. When you add into that the principle that my party supports, which is that the Canadian Wheat Board has a responsibility to get the best price at the lowest cost
November 23, 1989

for the Canadian producer, you can see how the emphasis on marketing in the Pacific Rim will attract the attention of the Canadian Wheat Board.
For example, in the last few years the Wheat Board has closed its marketing office in Europe and opened up one in the Pacific Rim. We know that right now in the third of three disastrous crop years the Wheat Board is maximizing the west coast ports. It is pushing every tonne of grain, every bushel it can through Vancouver and Prince Rupert because the Wheat Board gets a better deal over all for the producers by doing so.
What does that mean in the long term? It means, and we have seen this over the last three years, that a number of vessels have been scrapped on the Great Lakes. Lake freighters have been cut up with torches and sold to scrap yards. We have seen a number flagged out to foreign countries, formerly Canadian vessels crewed by Canadians with employment and revenue coming to Canada. Now these vessels are flagged in the Bahamas or any other country that provides that kind of tax-free haven. We do not have the capacity to move the kind of grain that we should be able to move in good times.
I was told two days ago at the retirement reception for Mr. William O'Neil, president of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, that one of Canada's shipping companies is moving only American grain out of the port of Duluth to Port Cartier or Baie Comeau.
We have been told that we cannot move the grain sitting in Thunder Bay downstream right now because we do not have the ships available-this is still in a bad year. What happens if we get a 30 million tonne crop for export purposes? Sure the west coast can handle 16 million, 17 million or 18 million tonnes, but where is the rest going to go? What happens if we get a 40 million tonne crop? The port of Thunder Bay can handle 26 million tonnes during a short season with a winter rail program. As a nation, if we do not protect the investment that we have in Thunder Bay, in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system, we will not be able to move our products when we have to.
What I am proposing is a means of equalizing the movement of grain east and west, to leave it to the market-place to decide in which direction the grain should go. Right now it is going through the west coast
Private Member's Business
because the Wheat Board is more aggressive in its marketing in that direction than it is in Europe, North Africa and even the Soviet Union.
Let me refer to the years 1978-1984 when on average Thunder Bay had 55 per cent of the export grain moving through that port and then the river ports. At one time, 37 per cent of the grain that the port of Thunder Bay handled was rehandled at Baie Comeau. We are now at the point where we will be lucky if we get 40 per cent of the grain movement coming through the eastern system. So there has been a fundamental shift and we will have good times again. It is important that we, as a nation, be in a position to export that grain. Quite frankly, if we cannot move it, then why are we producing it on the prairies?
The only other option would be to rail the grain past Thunder Bay, down to the bay ports, even to Montreal or to Quebec City, at a much higher cost. It is about $20 a tonne more using three freely-supplied Canadian Wheat Board cars to move it east of Thunder Bay by rail. The irony is that we are probably going to have to do that this winter. There will probably be a winter rail program out of Thunder Bay this winter because we do not have the ships to move the grain in the last three weeks when the Seaway will be open in order to meet the unconfirmed purchase from the Soviet Union. So as a society we will pay more than we have to.
We also have to recognize that, although rail transportation is a very efficient mode of travel and a very environmentally friendly method of transporting bulk commodities, marine is even better. So we will lose in a couple of ways. What I am proposing is that in order to level the playing field, we treat the eastern movement the same way we are treating the western movement by rearranging the WGTA.
I am told that in the WGTA there is a provision for 20 per cent overhead for CN and CP, a guaranteed allotment of funds from the federal treasury for the processing of the handling of grain. I am suggesting that money could be better used by providing the same kind of subsidy that we currently offer CN and CP to the ship operators on the Great Lakes, so that it is farmgate to salt water whether it is the west coast or the east coast. The logical extension of that is that the Canadian Wheat Board will not have to overemphasize one direction over

Private Member's Business
the other. It can be as aggressive in its marketing for the eastern system as it is for the western system.
Tied into this is the whole question of the seaway tolls and the current requirement of 100 per cent cost recovery. We do not have that requirement in air and we do not have that requirement in trucking. We are subsidizing rail, so we obviously do not require it there. When we look at the Seaway tolls I will admit right up front that the amount of money per tonne which goes toward Seaway tolls is minimal. But as Robert Patterson, president of Patterson Steamship Lines, one of the oldest grain shipping companies in this country, has said in the past, "On the seaway we are talking about pennies per tonne. In terms of our flexibility, one or two more pennies will mean the difference between whether or not we move that cargo."
To say to the users of the Seaway: "Thou must pay 100 per cent of the cost of operating" does not reflect the realities of the market-place, nor does it reflect the reality that every time bulk cargo is moved through Thunder Bay, whether it is potash to the United States, coal to Hamilton, grain to Sorel, Quebec City, Baie Comeau or Port Cartier, it is not just Thunder Bay that is benefiting from it, it is Sault Ste. Marie, Welland, Thorold, Toronto, the Quebec ports and Halifax that are benefiting. Jobs are created in those provinces.
In western Canada it is coal from British Columbia and Alberta, it is grain from Saskatchewan and Manitoba and it is potash from Saskatchewan that is moving through the system. The hub, the handling and trans-shipment point is Thunder Bay. It is important for our community. Hundreds and hundreds of jobs in Thunder Bay depend upon the movement of grain and bulk commodities through that port.
The tolls exist because during the lead up in the negotiations between Canada and the United States to construct the Seaway, the American rail lobby, which had blocked such a development for years, only agreed to let it proceed if there would be 100 per cent cost recovery. Do you know why? Because they knew they would be out-competed. It was the Americans who forced Canada to charge 100 per cent of the cost.
Today the United States has eliminated its Seaway tolls. The Americans have put in place a port tax on commodities in all ports throughout the U.S. with the money going into a development fund to operate and build. They rebate those who go through Canadian locks with American products. Even though they are the ones who said Canada must charge 100 per cent, they are not doing that themselves now.
Tolls are a barrier to the introduction of new services. Tolls are another form of tax and act as a detriment to the ongoing viability of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway. The largest population mass in North America lives along the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system and has a very important impact on the economies of both countries. It is up to us as legislators to try to provide solutions to the very real and legitimate concerns about the manner in which the movement of bulk commodities is treated-grain on the one hand in terms of the WGTA and all bulk commodities in terms of the Seaway toll.
We have had a discussion paper called "Growing Together, A Vision for Canada's Agri-food Industry" which has been circulated by the Minister of Agriculture. It is asking for responses. It is asking for ideas. It raises issues. My intention is for this motion to be a catalyst, to provide a focus for discussion that will impact on "Growing Together" because it will have a major impact on our ability to sell the grain that we know we can grow. Some of the best grain in the world, if not the best grain in the world, comes from our prairies.
There is a major crisis in the Seaway. We are losing ships, both to the scrap heap and to the foreign flags. We are losing highly skilled trained workers. Even with the upturn in terms of grain movement this fall, no one has been called back to work in Thunder Bay. What we are seeing, as well as the rail program that I expect will occur, is some employment stability for those few men who have been called back this fall. There will be a whole other group that will not have any work this year and will not be able to qualify for unemployment insurance. They are going elsewhere to find other work and we will lose their talents.
It is not just a question of not having the bottoms to move the grain, we must have the skilled people on the marine side, elevators on the land side and rails to move these products. As a country we will lose because of that.

In closing, I want to say that I would encourage the government to take this motion very seriously. This is not a dilatory motion. One has to plant a seed and say: "let us look at it". I would encourage the members opposite to support this motion, to allow it to come to a vote so that we can send a message to the Government of Canada. It is up to them to decide if that is the direction they want to go, but there is no benefit in saying no at this stage.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as you know very well one cannot talk about the grain industry without talking about grain transportation. Furthermore, you cannot talk about grain transportation without talking about the WGTA.
WGTA is not a simple issue. In fact, it is very much an historic issue in the sense that it is built upon the Crow rate which I would like to talk about in a few moments.
Unfortunately, the motion before this House to extend the WGTA to include marine transportation costs between Thunder Bay and Salt Water fails to recognize this history.
Furthermore, I would suggest that now is not the time for piecemeal solutions to complicated problems. As the hon. member has just indicated, we are on the threshold of a major agricultural policy review which will deal in a comprehensive way with transportation as well as with other issues which are vital to agriculture.
Perhaps for our listening audience it is important to talk for a moment about the WGTA, and to note that the act is related only to rail transportation and only to movements no further east than Thunder Bay. This act came into effect in 1984 but it was a successor to the legendary Crow which is very much a vital part of our history. In fact, the Crow and the history of western Canada are almost synonymous, at least since the latter part of the 1890s.
Under the famous, or some might even say the infamous Crow, the Canadian Pacific Railway built a railway line from Lethbridge to Nelson through the Crowsnest Pass in return for a fairly generous subsidy from the federal government.
Private Member's Business
As part of that package there was an agreement that freight rates would be reduced on inbound settlers' goods and outbound grain traffic. This agreement encouraged settlement of the west and expansion of Canada's grain industry. Although this agreement was subsequently altered in legislation in the 1920s, it basically remained in effect until the 1980s. By the 1960s, however, the statutory grain rates were not providing the railways with enough revenue to maintain the grain-related rail network on the prairies.
As a result, ad hoc government financial assistance programs were instituted in the 1970s to assist the railways, to help with the cost of hopper cars, boxcar repairs and the rehabilitation of grain-dependent branch lines.
The WGTA was supposed to provide the railways with enough revenue from the transportation of grain to ensure the long term viability of the grain gathering network. The required revenue was generated by increasing the government's subsidies to the railways through the so-called Crow benefit and by increasing the freight rates charged to shippers.
This act did result in increased freight rates. But like the previous legislation, it was directed to rail transportation of western grain from the prairies to Canadian ports. That is why, in my opinion, this motion is inconsistent with the act's historical basis as an assistance mechanism for the movement of western grain.
In addition, any extension of the WGTA to include marine transportation costs, together with the elimination of the 100 per cent cost recovery on the Seaway, would undoubtedly increase the current level of subsidy. That subsidy is approximately $720 million at the present time. It is my opinion, speaking as the member of Parliament for Brandon-Souris, and on behalf of an area which has been badly hit by drought for the second year in a row-in some instances a third and a fourth year in a row-that if we are now able to increase financial assistance to agriculture, as indeed I hope we are, then the 1989 drought program should be our first priority.
While the WGTA has largely achieved its goals, it has been discussed and debated widely for many years. There are many questions remaining with respect to its future. There remains a wide range of views about what its
November 23, 1989

Private Member's Business
significance has been in the past and what its role should be in the years to come.
Obviously now is an important time to review the role of the WGTA just as it is a very important time to review the role of agricultural policies in general. That is why the Western Grain Transportation Act is considered to be a very key transportation issue in the current review of federal agricultural policy.
A discussion paper has been unveiled called "Growing Together". It will be discussed at some length when farm leaders come to Ottawa in early December. It will also be discussed at farm meetings throughout all of Canada.
This policy review is concerned with getting Canada's agri-food industry up to date and able to cope with the next decade.
There are many pressures facing the agricultural sector today, both domestic and international, which point to the need for this comprehensive policy review.
In the past few years, we have learned-sometimes the hard way-that approaches used in the past are no longer appropriate now and they do not always permit us to address future challenges in a way in which we would wish.
In some cases, these policies are preventing the agricultural sector from exploiting opportunities. In others, the uncertainty and unpredictability of ad hoc programs is interfering with its management decisions. I think it is exceedingly important that we rid ourselves to the nth degree possible of our dependency of ad hoc agricultural programs-


Mr. Benjamin:: This isn't ad hoc.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: No, not agriculture, but ad hoc agricultural programs have not always worked in the best interests of the agricultural communities and that is why this review is important.
Recent events have shown more clearly the need to take stock and adapt to the environment the agri-food sector will face in the future.
There are a number of compelling reasons for government and industry to define a new vision for agriculture. The sector needs to adapt to a rapidly changing domestic market for agri-food products. We must also be ready to respond to an increasingly competitive world trading environment. We must also review and revitalize our
financial farm support programs. We must do what is necessary to keep pace with rapid technological change. The challenge of increasing environmental awareness and pressure must be met. Our record for safe nutritious food must be maintained.
In the area of transportation, this government knows transportation policies must be sensitive to both regional diversity and national interests. A program that operates in one region may have implications across the country. These implications must be considered in any proposals for change. For example, four western provinces at the moment either have or have had livestock feed assistance programs to offset the effects of other programs. Sometimes this patchwork of programs leads to conflicting results and makes it exceedingly difficult to have a national approach to agriculture.
Since the WGTA took effect, Canada as a major exporter of grains and oilseeds has experienced the negative impact of huge, direct subsidies by our major competitors, namely, the American and the European communities. Programs which support the Canadian industry must be viewed in the context of these high subsidy levels maintained by our competition.
Transportation policies, like all government policies, should be consistent with international trade rules to minimize the risk of trade action by other countries. Canada wants to reduce over-all levels of trade distorting subsidies, but we do not plan to do it alone. We will be looking at the actions of our trading partners to ensure that they are dealing with their subsidies as well. What we need to do is to examine our grain transportation policies including the subsidies to make sure that they are the most effective form of assistance possible to promote and develop our industry into the future.
Many agricultural policies and programs, including the Western Grain Transportation Act, have been in place for a number years and in some cases have been built upon a legacy of a number of decades. A review which is now about to take place is designed to ensure that transportation policies like other agricultural policies are developed and planned so that they are in harmony with each other to ensure that government dollars are used in the most effective manner possible, to ensure that there is co-operation between provincial and federal governments, as there must be, and to ensure that these policies work together in co-operation with the farm
November 23, 1989

communities to provide as much viability and security for the farm community in the future as indeed it must have.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to debate the motion before the House. I agree with my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan on many of the statements he has made with respect to the efficiency of the workforce in the city of Thunder Bay, and in fact in northern Ontario, which has a great effect on the movement of grain through Kenora, Dryden, Ignace, and Thunder Bay and out of Winnipeg and Brandon.
We serve fundamentally the same area and the same constituents. We serve the 1,500 grain workers in Thunder Bay who work in the elevators, led by their very capable business agent, Richard McFarlane. Many railway workers working in that area for the CNR and the CPR move very efficiently the full grain cars coming in from the west, unloading them at the elevators, moving them out from the elevators and returning them back to the farmers for refilling.
There are hundreds of government employees involved in the movement of grain through the port of Thunder Bay. The municipality of Thunder Bay and other municipalities along the north shore benefit greatly because of the municipal tax base created by the elevators on the waterfront.
Indeed, we serve also the business community and the businessmen in Thunder Bay in the north because of the tremendous wealth brought into that area by the movement of grain into the port of Thunder Bay. We serve the same area. I agree that when we compare the movement of grain from the farms in the west to the Prince Rupert ports, the Vancouver ports and the port of Thunder Bay, they are indeed moving grain downhill rather than uphill.
More important, the port of Thunder Bay has been moving grain for well over 75 years. We have developed an efficient workforce. It is a treat to go down to the ports to see how they move the grain in from the rail cars, unload them and move the empty grain cars back with, as my friend says a turnaround of more than seven days in moving the grain through the western ports.
Private Member's Business
These are considerations that have to be taken into account when we are talking about the Western Grain Transportation Act.
I agree with what has been said here today in the main. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with the solution my friend offers. I would like to explain why.
When we talk about subsidizing the movement of grain from the port of Thunder Bay to down river ports in Baie Comeau, Montreal or Halifax, we are talking about moving approximately 17 or 18 million bushels of grain a year. The average cost of a tonne of wheat being moved is about $20. This means that we are adding an additional $340 million in subsidy to the transportation of grain in this country. When you add this to the Crow's Nest Pass or recently the Western Grain Transportation Act which is approximately $1 billion a year, we are contemplating subsidizing it in excess of well over $1 billion a year. With the economy we face today, when we have to come to grips with the deficit that we are trying to control on an annual basis, with the huge debt that we have, I am wondering if it makes any sense at this point in time to further subsidize something else in our economy that will add not only to the deficit but to the debt, when there are alternative ways in which to correct this problem.
The alternatives have been suggested not only by our experts in this field but by the Alberta and British Columbia governments; the Canadian Grain Council's factoring influence in the direction of exports of grain, which was in March 1989; the solutions of the president of the Canadian Ship Owners Association; and the solutions of the Shipping Federation of Canada. All of them say that we should change the Western Grain Transportation Act. That is the fundamental issue we are here to discuss today-changing the manner and the method in which they are paying the subsidy of the movement of grain today to a more efficient method.
If I may say there is no incentive today to reduce the cost of shipping grain. The farmer brings the grain to the gate and he pays a certain fee regardless of where the grain is shipped. The railways, CN and CP, have no incentive to move the grain at a more economical rate or find better ways to ship the grain. According to the act they get paid by the distance they move the grain. There is no efficient, cost effective way or any incentive for

November 23, 1989
Private Member's Business
either of those two primary parties to reduce the cost of shipping of grain in western Canada.
What I am saying, as has been said by the people who have reviewed the Western Grain Transportation Act in some depth, is that we have to create an incentive to move grain in Canada at a more efficient rate than what we are doing today. We must make our railways more competitive. We must promote efficiency and reward that efficiency with the railways and with the farmer.
We have to change the method of payment from paying the railways to paying the grower or the producer. Let the farmer, the person who produces the grain or the product, make the final decision as to where and how he is going to ship that product because it means more of a return to him. This is a basic flaw in the Western Grain Transportation Act, as it is now stated. Until we come to grips with that fundamental flaw in that act, we can do nothing to enhance the movement of grain and the cost efficiency of movement of grain in this country.
I see that my time is up. I thank Your Honour for the opportunity to make this intervention.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, again I find myself surrounded by amateurs; two in particular, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon. I never thought I would live to see the day when they would oppose a motion that protects the hundreds of millions of dollars of both public and private investments in Canada, in the St. Lawrence Seaway, in our ports, in our shipping industry, in our grain terminals, and in our railways.
The whole purpose and intent of the Crow's Nest Pass Freight Agreement and subsequent to that the Western Grain Transportation Act was trying to provide-and I hate to use the phrase-a level playing field for our grain exports. Our competitors produce their grain within 200, 300 or 400 miles of salt water. Our average haul is 1,000 miles. What we have at the moment is a level playing field and the other guy has the ball on our 10-yard line all the time. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will understand that.
I want to say to the hon. members for Brandon-Souris and Thunder Bay that I would appreciate if they
would organize a debate on this issue in their respective ridings any time they wish and invite me. I ask them to give me a couple of weeks' notice. They can invite all the Liberals and Tories they like and fill the hall with them. I would love a chance to take them on.
All that this country has been trying to do since 1897 is make the playing field level in competition with our main competitors.
Second, as my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atiko-kan pointed out, the Americans refund the tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway to their flagships. That is why even Canadian ships are moving grain from Duluth and not from Thunder Bay. That is why the grain handlings have dropped substantially in the downstream ports in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Canada.
In fact, American companies are using some of our terminals downstream St. Lawrence to move their grain and the tolls do not cost them anything, because they get it fully rebated by the U.S. government. Surely, any member of Parliament from Thunder Bay, in fact from Halifax West would understand that is unfair and unreasonable. We can do no less than try to defend ourselves from that kind of unfair, irresponsible activity of not only the United States but other countries, particularly the European Economic Community.
My friend from Thunder Bay-Nipigon had the figures all wrong on the cost of moving grain. He used figures for moving it by rail, not by water. He gave dollars per bushel instead of dollars per tonne. He must have dropped his file in Thunder Bay, because he was all wet on the figures he tried to cite.
We cannot continue to just leave things as they are. It was the party of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon that killed the Crow's Nest Pass rate. The Conservatives along with I and others fought the Liberal government on that for a year and a half until we lost the vote in 1983. I did not expect any more from a Liberal, because they are the ones that did it to us. But when I hear a Conservative member from a Manitoba constituency, almost all of whose grain goes east, getting up and opposing this motion, I tell you that passes all understanding. It is not only wrong headed; it is stupid.
I have been involved with this issue for more than 21 years as well as when I was on the railroad. If you charge the full commercial rate for the movement of grain and
November 23, 1989

other bulk commodities without any subsidies of any kind, one of two things will happen in our country.
It either loses the markets or producers of those bulk commodities will have to take drastically lower prices and they will get out of that production. I do not care whether it is coal, potash, sulphur, pulp, or grain; you name it. All these programs, as does the WGTA to a certain extent, take into account our climate, our geography and who it is we are competing with, compared to climate, geography and where they produce their commodities.
As I pointed out earlier, the Australians and Argentinians produce their grain within 200 miles of salt water. The Argentine Government hauls its grain to export positions at no cost to the producers. Yet these two hon. members, one Liberal and one Tory, expect our grain producers and our shipping companies on the Great Lakes and seaway, to compete with that. That is unmitigated nonsense.
My colleague's motion makes imminent sense. It is another step we have to take. According to free trade agreement proponents, if they mean what they say about a level playing field and they are honest about it, we are to see to it that this sort of thing happens.
The St. Lawrence Seaway for Canadian products and shipping should be toll-free. It is a public investment. It is a public utility. It is there for all to use like our highways. I do not understand the so-called free market system and free enterprise system. It has been nothing more than socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
I do not understand why there is the resistance to make a national effort to take into account our geography and climate and set up facilities and transportation costs that allow us to deliver our product to export positions anywhere between Thunder Bay and Halifax at an equal transportation cost to those of our competitors, even if that means another $200 million or $300 million a year in subsidy. I do not call it a subsidy. I call it protecting our investment in our farms, shipping companies and what we have put into the seaway and ports, all of which lose money. You cannot even give them away to a municipality.
Private Member's Business
This motion is worthy of consideration and action by a government of any political stripe, if it treats all the producers and transporters anywhere in this country equally and decently.


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, may I allude to some comments first of all by the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. He refers to the amateurs who have spoken. I am proud to be an amateur. I am proud to have the opportunity of addressing this particular bill as the member for Scarborough East, because I think it is incumbent upon all members of this House to try to comprehend in some way the problems of their colleagues from other parts of Canada.
I think it is necessary for us to consider and examine various provisions of the Western Grain Transportation Act, which is a very important piece of legislation for all western farmers. The act came into effect on January 1, 1984. Rail freight rates for shippers increased and the federal government was committed to making payments to the railways to reflect new cost based rail rates.
The act consists of eight parts plus two schedules. The main provisions of the act include new regulatory and advisory machinery aimed at implementing the act and improving the over-all grain transportation system, and also a timetable for review of the acts, operation.
Although the act contains no formal statement of its over-all objectives there are references throughout to a number of interrelated objectives, such as to improve the capacity and efficiency of the grain transportation and handling system in order to maximize returns to producers and to ensure an adequate, reliable and efficient railway transportation system, as well as to ensure that the over-all revenues of the railway system are adequate to meet long-term needs.
The WGTA is comprised of five major parts which deal with administrative measures, rates, government payments, limits on shipper rates and reviews. The part dealing with administrative measures has two principle objectives. The first is to establish the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, to define its membership and responsibilities, to establish in law the grain transportation administrator and to define his responsibilities. It also deals with specific provisions related to efficiencies, system performance, service quantities, car allocation and railway commitment plan.
The Senior Grain Transportation Committee advises the minister and the administrator on any issue affecting the transportation, shipping and handling of grain,

Private Member's Business
including performance objectives, capacity, efficiency measures and railway car allocations.
The SGTC originally consisted of 21 members representing a wide range of interests, including producers, the railways, grain companies, Great Lakes carriers, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission. Amendments to the act approved in 1985 expanded producer representation on the committee from four to nine. The establishment of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee has facilitated the involvement of all segments of the grain industry and the evolution of the grain transportation and handling systems.
The grain transportation agency administrator and his staff have specific operational responsibilities related to system capacity and efficiency, performance objectives, car allocation and administration and control of the government fleet of hopper cars. The administrator is a member of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
A nominal system of awards and sanctions related to performance objectives was established pending a review in 1985 and 1986 to determine the practicality of a permanent scheme. Implementation of such a scheme would be to subject to parliamentary review.
Under this system the grain transportation agency administrator establishes objectives such as tonnage targets for system participants. The administrator reports twice each year to the minister and SGTC on the achievement of these performance objectives. This provides an opportunity for the industry to assess problems and identify solutions for the transportation and the handling of grain.
Monitoring railway investment is an important aspect of the WGTA. The railways submit to the minister, the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, The National Transportation Agency and the GTA Administrator, an annual statement of their plant and equipment investments related to the movement of grain for the preceed-ing year, their general investment plans for the current and next calendar year, and expenditures on the maintenance of grain dependent branch lines for the preceding year.
The National Transportation Agency monitors the railways expenditure programs and submits reports to the minister. The minister has the authority to withhold payments to the railways in the event that he is not satisfied with the level of branch line maintenance on grain dependent lines undertaken by the railways or with railways general investment program.
The second part of the act deals with rates. The principal objectives of this section are to provide a statutory basis for the distance related base rate scale for the movement of grain by rail, the principal of port parity for Vancouver and Prince Rupert, a phase-in contribution to the railways constant costs, the determination of the railways eligible costs in the annual rate scale and finally, regular railway crossing reviews.
Unlike the old statute which fixed the rate levels of grain movements, the new act sets formula which determine the new rate every year. The annual rate scale is determined on the basis of the distance related base rate scale adjusted for railway price indices established by the National Transportation Agency, tonnage forecasts provided by the administrator of the grain transportation agency, and productivity improvements.
The WGTA contains a base rate scale which is simply the Crow rate scale adjusted to correct certain anomalies. The annual rate scale under the WGTA is determined by adjusting the base rate by a multiplier calculated in accordance with the WGTA formula.
In the interest of achieving future system economies, provision was made for the railways to charge incentive rates, that is, rates below those permitted under the rate scale. These incentive rates are subject to National Transportation Agency approval. The initiative to seek a lower rate rests with the shipper in consultation with the railways. Until crop year 1985-86 no lower rate application to the agency was permitted except for weekend and seasonal loadings. All the major grain companies currently benefit from incentive rates.
Provision was made to ensure that a lower or higher rate paid by the shippers as a result of an error in a tonnage forecast was corrected over the course of the two following crop years. This provision has since been
November 23, 1989

amended to provide for an adjustment only where an overpayment or underpayment exceeds $150 million.
The principal objectives of the part of the act concerning the government payments are the following: to provide a statutory basis for the Crow benefit; to define the cost sharing formula; to limit the government payments to a tonnage ceiling linked to a blended freight rate; and finally to provide for a timetable to make government payments.
The government is committed to pay the full Crow benefit of $658.6 million plus the government share of cost changes. The Crow benefit is the shortfall in railway revenue calculated for 1981-82 when legislative change was set in motion. The shipper currently pays for annual changes in railway costs up to 6 per cent. The government pays for cost changes in excess of 6 per cent.
An adjustment payment is made to CN owing to factors affecting costs outside its control such as port parity to Prince Rupert and the high cost of the Churchill line. There is a single rate scale common to both railways.
The "shipper share limitation" provision in the act requires the government to ensure that average rates paid by shippers do not exceed a defined percentage of the selling price of a basket of six grains. The limit is currently 10 per cent. This acts as a safety net for producers.
The section on review enshrined in legislation is a commitment to undertake reviews of key features of the bill.
I see that my time is up. I have enjoyed having the opportunity to address the Western Grain Transportation Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
Government Orders




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the debate ended at five o'clock, the hon. member for Delta had the floor. He has eight minutes remaining in his debate.


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, when we were interrupted by Private Members' Hour, we were just comparing the human foetus not with the acorn but with the young sapling of an oak tree. It resembles a young sapling much more. Although small in size, it has the fully developed characteristics of that mature tree.
However, the single fertilised egg can indeed become a whole body of extremely complex structures producing many different tissues and functions. It will produce many thousands of complex chemicals and enzymes, nerve cells, skin, hair, bone, muscles and blood and various sensory organs.
When we are talking about the embryo or the foetus, we are not dealing with an indeterminate mass or a lump of tissue, we are dealing with something that will eventually become what you and I are today. That little foetus is a contractor for the adult human. It has the plans and the blueprints and the ability to receive supplies from the mother and develop something far more fantastic than the building of brick and mortar. We need to remember that you and I and Dr. Morgentaler were all at one time an embryo, a foetus, a baby and a child.
The greater and harder question we have to ask today is, is that foetus a person? Is it a human being? Does it have a soul? That question must be asked because it is crucial to the whole question of abortion. When does one become a human being? Do we suddenly become one? Is it a gradual process or a developmental thing?

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
We do not have all the answers at this time in history. Part of the question is semantics. A person is a legal definition for a biological entity of the most complex order.
The answers to this question are as varied as the numbers of people providing answers. Aristotle, for example, thought that males became persons at 40 days after conception and females at 90 days after conception. There are many criteria which have been used over the years to try to determine when the foetus does indeed become a human being or a person. There are physical criteria such as time or age. For example, does it become a human at conception? Is it when the organs are forming or when the heart starts to beat or perhaps when the mother first feels that quickening. Perhaps it is at the age of viability when it is first able to survive on its own outside the womb. Others would suggest to us that it is when that first breath is taken at birth.
The second physical criteria that is sometimes used is health. In other words, if a foetus is not healthy, it is not a person or a newborn. For example, Nobel prize-winning biologist Francis Crick believes that a child should be two days old before it is considered to be a person. This would allow for elimination of those who are unhealthy or perhaps have serious defects that would interfere with their functioning in society. Others would use social criteria. In other words, an infant must show interaction with other human beings in order to be considered human. This would put the development of a person at a much later stage than birth.
A third possibility that has been used is mental criteria. Man is distinct from animals because of his intelligence. Joseph Fletcher, the author of Situation Ethics, supports this view and maintains that abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are not the taking of human life, merely biological life.
It is this reasoning that allowed slavery to flourish as blacks were considered a sub-human species. Nazi Germany allowed the extermination of six million Jews in World War II because they were not as human as the master race.
The Vancouver Sun, in an editorial of November 20, 1989, said in its referral to the Supreme Court decision in the Daigle case that the court did not attempt to assume the role of a moral or philosophical adviser on the
controversial question of when life begins. It did not consider the theological or scientific aspects of the question, only the legal ones.
I would suggest tonight that this Parliament must define these rights of the foetus. As Madam Justice Wilson said in a written judgment in the Morgentaler case: "The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state's interest in its protection becomes compelling I will leave to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all relevant disciplines".
I personally have sat and wept with young pregnant teenagers. I understand the anguish of the pregnant wife with the alcoholic husband. I have wept with the 45-year-old woman with three teenagers who finds herself pregnant even though her husband has been out of town for six months. I have also seen the 18-year-old coming in with her third and fourth pregnancy and desiring an abortion. These are the realities that we live with.
I believe the answer to these problems is not the quick and easy abortion route but rather the development of a caring society that provides for good birth control information when and where needed. We should encourage research into new and safer forms of birth control. Society has to provide the caring support for the unwed and the poor mothers and their families. There are more than enough good homes in this country crying out for babies to adopt.
Ninety-five per cent of abortions in this country are performed because of the anxiety and depression resulting from the pregnancy. Abortion is said to be a woman's issue and in many ways it is. However, in my practice I found that a very high percentage of the abortions were as a result of pressure brought about by boyfriends and husbands who threatened to leave or threatened other things for their own selfish reasons. I believe that we must ensure a thorough counselling and support program, including financial support for pregnant women where required.
I would suggest today that there is absolutely no evidence that the long-term health effects of abortion are in any way better and indeed many studies have been shown them to be far worse than when an unwanted pregnancy is carried to term.
November 23, 1989

Dr. Philip Ney, a Victoria psychiatrist and professor at the University of Calgary, writing in the current issue of the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa found in a survey of the literature "Mental Health and Abortion: Review and Analysis", and I am quoting here his summary:
This survey of studies which relate to the emotional sequelae of induced abortion draws attention to the need for more long-term in-depth prospective studies. The literature to this point finds no psychiatric indications for abortion, and no satisfactory evidence that abortion improves the psychological state of those not mentally ill; abortion is contra-indicated when psychiatric disease is present, as mental ill-health has been shown to be worsened by abortion. Recent studies are turning up in an alarming rate of post-abortion complications such as PID and subsequent infertility. The emotional impact of these complications needs to be studied. Other considerations looked at are the long-term demographic implications of abortion on demand and the effect on the medical professions.
In this day of modem medicine and therapy, indeed there are very few medical indications for abortion.
In summary, I would like to agree with the author of the minority report of the Law Reform Commission which stated abortion should be permitted only where the continuance of the pregnancy would constitute a genuine and serious threat to the health of the mother.
I would be prepared to vote at second reading for this legislation in the hopes that the legislative committee and later the House would bring in amendments to the bill so that we may restore to this problem a basis of sound biological, medical and ethical principles for guidance and judgment.
{Translation}


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I found it very difficult to espouse the legislator's point of view and accept the fact that the Abortion Bill had to be part of the Criminal Code. In this respect, I must admit that the position taken by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops as well as that taken by the Law Reform Commission reflect the principles I adhere to as a Catholic, and I quote: "The inclusion of provisions relating to abortion in the Criminal Code reflects the fundamental policy of our nation. In the last analysis, the Criminal Code is a reflection of what we are. It is an extension of our will or absence of will to promote human dignity and equality".
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, in every discussion we had in caucus and with the public, there were many times I felt this as an intrusion in my personal affairs, and I was very frustrated to see a lack of understanding for the economic, physical and physiological circumstances of women's lives.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I was very much involved in preparing the legislation before the House today, and I admit that I am a pro-choicer who was willing to compromise, because we must have legislation in order to avoid incidents of the kind we saw in the sad and sensational case involving Chantal Daigle and Jean-Guy Tremblay.
During our first debate, I was in favour of an 18-week limit, a position I had to revise as a result of the numerous debates that ensued and the legal opinions I received. I am also very concerned about what is happening in the Maritimes, for instance, because if the government had provided for an open gestation period, from 0 to 18 weeks, during which women could obtain an abortion without indicating any particular grounds or reasons, we might have penalized certain women and created an unfair situation, because the provinces could have refused to pay the fees of medical practitioners since certain regions do not offer this kind of service.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget we have two extreme positions on abortion: pro-choice and pro-life. In fact, anti-choice is more like it, Mr. Speaker. Both parties object to any legislation that does not espouse their respective principles.
It is easy for those on either side of the fence to say that the government has failed to address the issue, because these people did not have to sit down as legislators to deal first of all with Canadian realities, then Parliament, caucus, the Supreme Court and finally, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Bill C-43, in my opinion, merely lays down in a legislative text what is happening today. A woman who wants an abortion must first see her doctor. We all agree that abortion is a medical act. So, with or without legislation, a woman must talk to her doctor, and the doctor will either agree or refuse to do the operation.
As for those who complain about lack of access, this is a frivolous objection since, according to the Canada Health Act, health is a matter under provincial jurisdiction and provincial health care systems have been devel-

Government Orders
oped to cover the specific needs of each province, hence the obligation to deal with Canadian realities.
The criteria in the act provide a general orientation, while the provinces are deliberately given a certain latitude for implementing the legislation, so that they can make decisions on the basis of local priorities and resources.
When we read the text of the Canada Health Act, we find there is no list of specific medical services, such as oncology, cardiac surgery or abortion services. The provinces, together with the medical profession, determine what medical services are necessary. The provinces regulate the medical profession and health care institutions such as hospitals and CLSCs. The provinces also decide how to ensure that their residents have access to these medical services.
We must remember that the federal government cannot dictate policy in areas under provincial jurisdiction. It seems to me that is not difficult to understand, Mr. Speaker. If it tried, it would impinge on the role of the provinces in Confederation, which would obviously meet with objections from the courts.
We must remember that the constitutionality of the Canada Health Act is now being challenged before the courts. However, we believe that this abortion legislation will come through with flying colours, since its present wording does not impinge on provincial jurisdictions.
Briefly, Parliament can only pass regulations on abortion at the national level through the Criminal Code. The proposed legislation provides the provinces with the guidelines they requested regarding the legal framework for dealing with abortion. To do so, the proposed legislation gives the provinces the guidelines they sought concerning a legal framework for abortion.
I think that with this new legal framework, the provincial governments will be able to respect the letter and spirit of the law and provide access to all the required medical services.
I now call on women's groups to put pressure on the legislatures in provinces which do not provide abortion services. I ask my colleague from Halifax, the Liberal critic on women's issues, to spend more time in New
Brunswick than in Ottawa, because that is where the big debate is going on.
Another thing to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that we broadened the definition of health to include psychological health. That was very important. It shows that we trust doctors because we know very well, Mr. Speaker, that women who want an abortion do not do so with a glad heart; it is always an agonizing, difficult decision.
It is really sad to see all sorts of propaganda campaigns with beautiful little babies, as if women were killers. It is wrong to believe that we who are pro-choice are proabortion. We are for women's choice, which is quite different.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell all Members of this House that the moderate approach of Bill C-43 should become law so that this public debate, which I think has gone on long enough, can end. It is time to get back to more basic things, like how to reduce the sexual abuse of children and how to help the victims of it, just as it is time to fight the violence suffered by many women.
The economic reality of women is staring us in the face, Mr. Speaker. We just have to look around us to notice it. The same goes for the insidious poverty of young people, which should make us think some more instead of acting in a paternalistic way and engaging in sterile debates on an issue which is first and foremost a woman's own business.
Mr. Speaker, I shall support the bill because I sincerely believe that it is the best compromise under the circumstances and in future I want to deal with the economic situation of tomorrow's children, those who are alive and just want to grow in the best world possible.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the subject is a very difficult one. This two-page bill on abortion says, and I will quote the English version:

Every person who induces an abortion on a female person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years unless the abortion is induced by or under the direction of a medical practitioner.
November 23, 1989



I agree with that part. We have finally gotten rid of the sordid image of backroom transactions. Finally, when an abortion is necessary, it is done by a physician, and any other person who does so is a criminal.

If the abortion were to be induced, it could be in a case of the health or the life of the mother. In the case of the life of the mother, I do agree with it, but I have some difficulty when I hear the definition of health when it talks about physical, mental and psychological health. I wonder who is going to make this decision.
If a person goes to see a doctor and doctor number one is not in agreement, then would the pregnant woman go and see doctor number two? If this is the case, are we not opening the risk of having a lawsuit by a third party who would ask why is it that doctor number two was in favour of the decision and doctor number one was not. Was doctor number two a psychiatrist or was he an expert in abortions? What kind of an expert was he? This will open the way for a tremendous amount of lawsuits by third parties, I suspect.
The last part of the bill states that everyone who unlawfully supplies or procures a drug or other noxious thing, or an instrument or thing knowing that it is intended to be used or employed to induce an abortion on a female person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. That I also agree with. However, with the bill as it stands I would have a great amount of difficulty.
I have heard speaker after speaker, member after member, especially now, referring to this being a woman's issue. I beg to differ with that point of view. We are all human beings. It appears to always be the same people who insist that when we refer to the feminine gender we should only refer to persons in the neutral gender. In this particular case, they become very possessive and they say that we have no right to even discuss the issue, let alone make a decision.
I find that difficult because life depends on the couple, that is male and female. I have had four children. I was very lucky to experience the births of my three last
Government Orders
children. I found those births to be miraculous things, good things. We are part of this universe to procreate.
I have also experienced the death of a grandchild at the age of eight months and that is excessively difficult to experience. I have raised four children with my wife and found that a wonderful experience because I am rather proud of my children.
In a contemporary society such as ours, we must not be afraid to adapt ourselves to the evolving needs of society. To adapt ourselves may signify sometimes that we must make a few drastic changes. Such changes should be expressed by establishing once and for all the basic rights of the foetus.

The Supreme Court says it has no obligation to intervene in philosophical and theological discussions on whether the foetus is a person. In that case, we wouldn't have to consider this matter here in Parliament and pass legislation in this House to protect the foetus.

Despite what the Supreme Court has said, the question of when life begins is not an issue of theology or philosophy; it can easily be answered by elementary biology. For more than a century, medical science has known conclusively that every individual's life begins at conception.

In any case, I would like to say a few words about my position on the abortion issue, with special emphasis on the rights of the foetus.

Presently, abortions are performed in Canada to solve the socio-economic problems of distressed pregnant women. These problems are real, but should be treated with socio-economic solutions and not by the wilful destruction of human life.
Let me quote a doctor who was on a therapeutic committee before they were declared unconstitutional on January 28, 1989:
In the time I was on the committee, there was no instance in which a serious physical threat to the health of the mother was ever demonstrated, and I don't recall any patient with a diagnosis of psychological or emotional illness being sick enough to ever have been referred to a psychiatrist - My recollection of all the cases presented in

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
the month that I was on the committee, is that they were all socioeconomic or economic reasons.
Hence, we do not solve any problem by implementing this law nor would we if we allowed abortion on demand. One of the issues that this government will have to face is what drives so many women desperately begging for an abortion when the majority of them are perfectly healthy. I pay a great deal of attention when I am told that pregnancy is a perfectly normal biological event, never a disease.
There is no case where an abortion is therapeutic. Abortions have nothing to do with physical or mental health. Abortions are done for reasons of social, economic or medical convenience.

The life of the foetus versus the life of the mother. Fortunately, this cruel dilemma is very rare nowadays. Doctors will practically always try to save both. However, the situation is interesting in that it gives us a chance to take a general perspective on the problems that arise when the interests of the foetus and those of the mother do not coincide, when it is a matter of survival for one or the other, and whose interests should come first, when we assume they are not compatible. In fact, it is both difficult and distasteful to put these two lives in the balance. Life is our most precious possession. Thke that away, and we take away a person's whole world. Furthermore, what grounds are there to justify setting a higher price on one person's life as opposed to others? All lives are equal. After all, no one in our society considers destroying a foetus as intrinsically good, despite all the diverging views on abortion. In fact, even the most solid supporters of free choice, who see abortion simply as a way to terminate unwanted pregnancies, will admit that the decision is often heartbreaking. To most people, the best answer is better family planning.
We could avoid this lengthy debate on abortion if we could improve family planning and education for Canadians. Family planning and education should be a priority for every government that wants to make abortion unnecessary. When abortion seems inevitable, we should encourage the use of social programs that provide single mothers with daycare and financial assistance. We must maintain and develop new and effective social programs in order to help the neediest among us who are seeking some kind of support.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I intend to vote for the bill on second reading. However, it is not because I support the principle of the bill but because I feel the bill should be considered by a committee of the House and that amendments should be made. However, I intend to vote against the bill in its present form on third reading, especially if we fail to offer at least minimal protection for the foetus.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the decision to allow the termination of a pregnancy is indeed one of the most difficult and divisive issues that our country has ever faced. I know that all of us as legislators have given it a great deal of personal thought and have wrestled with its moral and social implications.
We have all been lobbied intensively by those who oppose the concept of choice and those who support a woman's right to self-determination. We must always, as legislators, try to seek public consensus in a process and through our decision-making. Unfortunately, there are always those issues in our imperfect world where consensus is all but impossible, where public opinion remains intransigent and unalterably divided. There are occasions when the processes of conciliation and compromise only serve to compound our difficulties and to frustrate the solution that we seek. Such is the case with abortion.
I believe that the legislation on abortion now before this House does just that. In attempting to seek compromise where none appears possible, this legislation in fact denigrates a woman's legitimate right to choose by throwing it back into the Criminal Code. It compounds and frustrates the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy by casting over it the ominous cloud of criminal sanction.
I have thought about this issue a great deal and I firmly believe that making abortion illegal is unjust in principle and is unworkable in practice and that is why I cannot support this legislation.
The choice to terminate a pregnancy is a moral and intensely personal decision and in a free and a democratic society the conscience of the individual must remain paramount to the state. As was so eloquently stated by Supreme Court Justice Dickson, forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her priori-
November 23, 1989

ties and aspirations is a profound interference with a woman's body and an infringement of security of the person.
In this country we have a strong tradition of freedom and of individual liberty. We value our freedoms and our right to make those choices necessary to reach our life's goals and aspirations. Through this proposed legislation the government wants to take away that right to choose and give it to the politicians, and I think that that is a dangerous wrong.
Yesterday I listened to the former minister of health give his reasons for supporting this legislation, and in his arguments he made a very cogent point. The minister stated that we should not ascribe to society the powers it does not have. I would like to respond by saying that we should not ascribe to society the powers it does not deserve. Society does not deserve to interfere with what is a woman's personal moral decision, the outcome of which will influence the rest of her life. It is not for the state to legislate morality. Morality, the distinction between right and wrong, is not based on one answer for everyone. Morality is based upon freedom and the very essence of freedom involves the principle of choice.
The ability to choose one's destiny and to select one's path toward self-determination is a fundamental democratic right, a right that is being jeopardized by this legislation now before the House, a right that this government is trying to take away from the women of Canada.
Just what does the concept of choice really mean? Most anti-choice advocates equate the concept of choice with abortion on demand. But as a gross misconception, it completely ignores the traumatic reality that a woman must face when she is confronted with an unwanted pregnancy.
I make that statement with some direct experience. My wife faced an unplanned and totally unexpected pregnancy as a young woman. For her the prospects of bearing a child meant interrupting her education, it meant finding employment and it meant bearing the social and psychological trauma of being a young and unwed mother. She probably could not have faced it alone, but she was exceedingly fortunate. She was surrounded with the love and fellowship of an understanding and compassionate family who were there to
Government Orders
help and support her in the difficult path that she would choose.
She chose to bear the child and to endure the difficult and often painful, yet greatly rewarding job of parenthood. I came to know her at this point in her life and I witnessed first-hand the difficulties, the barriers, the deep psychological trauma that a young woman, as a single parent, must face. After we married I adopted her daughter who is now a young adult completing her degree in psychology and it goes without saying that we are both very proud of her.
Later in life, as a parent with three children I decided to interrupt my professional career to return to university and complete my doctorate degree in the health sciences. My wife informed me that she was again pregnant. Although we had taken precautions mother nature had once again performed her timeless ritual demanding the re-enactment of the biological imperative with great finesse. We could not possibly face the burden of another child if I was to return to academia and yet to terminate the pregnancy was not in the cards. There was, we felt, a reason for this child. So, we had the child, our youngest daughter, Karalyn, who is now eight years of age. I remained in my career. I eventually entered political life and that is why I am here today. There are times, I must admit, when I wonder whether I am a victim or a beneficiary of circumstance.
For my wife the choice to terminate her first pregnancy was not the option she could choose despite an uncertain future and hardship as a single parent. The same was true for us as husband and wife with our last child despite the difficulties involved. Having said that, we would not want to dictate to anyone else the path that they must choose. Faced with that decision, I think we both have a more realistic appreciation of the difficulties and the personal trauma that other women must endure, women who do not necessarily have the financial and the emotional supports to adequately care for a child.
And that is precisely the point. Choice means the freedom to select the path that is right for you. Choice means the right of a woman to decide for herself whether to bear the child or whether to interrupt the process until such time as she is better able to bring into this world a child that is wanted, a child that is loved, a child that can be adequately cared for. I firmly believe that the right to make that choice must be left up to the

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
individual. Governments should not be allowed to interfere.
The legislation before us today does nothing to resolve the bitter polarity surrounding the issue of abortion. It is intellectually dishonest and it is politically fraudulent. It gives the appearance that the government is doing something about the issue and in reality it is doing nothing to tackle the very essence of the problem. It does nothing to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and to support the unwanted children who continue to suffer in society today.
Our efforts in resolving the controversy of abortion have been futile, largely because we have been tackling the problem from the wrong dimension. To circumvent the need for abortion should always be the ultimate goal. Consensus can only be reached by focusing on the preventive side of the issue. The aim of education, research and social action must always be to reduce the incidence of abortion and to promote effective contraception. We must also involve the development of national programs, of counselling and support for those women who have decided to see their pregnancy to term.
The reality is that 56 per cent of single parent families in Canada live at or below the poverty line, and while one woman in four is sexually active by the age of 15, fewer than 10 per cent of North American teenagers use birth control when they first become sexually active. Despite these harsh realities, the national division of health and welfare has only one full-time worker in its family planning division.
We have failed miserably as a nation to provide a framework of support so necessary to allow women to make responsible decisions. Establishing effective preventive programs through our health, educational and social service agencies will do much to decrease future demands for abortions. This has to be combined with adequately funded support and counselling services for women facing an unwanted pregnancy. It is our collective responsibility to do all we can to help.
May I conclude by saying that in the final analysis the decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy
must be left to the woman. It must remain hers to choose the path which she alone must walk.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, usually when I have the privilege of speaking in this House I mention how pleased I am to speak on the bill before Parliament. Tonight I am not so much pleased as I am aware of the difficulties of this subject for all members of Parliament, including myself.
This is the second reading stage of Bill C-43. We are being asked to approve in principle a new law on abortion. The bill does not reflect my personal point of view. I have opposed abortion since I was a teenager and since that time I have worked and spoken out on behalf of protecting unborn children. I have spoken twice before on this subject in the House of Commons and it is not my intention at this point to repeat the arguments that I have made as to why I want protection for the unborn. I think it will suffice for me to say that for me this is a deeply held conviction.
I said this subject is difficult for parliamentarians. It is difficult because I know there is no consensus in Canada. I and many who share my point of view have tried to build that consensus but, for many reasons, it does not exist.
This Parliament now has the unenviable task of trying to reconcile two very divergent points of view, both, in many cases, passionately held. I do not know the words that could be put down on paper that could completely satisfy both sides of the issue.
Therefore, those of us who are deeply committed to the pro-life position have a decision to make. On the face of it, it would seem that the decision is straightfo-ward because this piece of legislation does not reflect my point of view and, therefore, it would seem simple to say that I must vote against it. But, and this is why it is difficult, there are other considerations to take into account.
November 23, 1989

One of them is my belief that this bill is better than no bill at all. It affirms that all human life has value. As well, there is the possibility that if this law passes perhaps a future Parliament might be able to build a consensus that would strengthen the protection of unborn children.
I am also faced with the reality. If this law does not pass I do not believe that Parliament ever again will pass legislation in the area of abortion. I cannot see federal parliamentarians re-opening the subject of abortion if this Parliament fails to enact legislation.
So the decision for those of us who support the pro-life position is this: Do we vote against this because, on principle, it does not protect unborn children in a manner that would be acceptable, or do we vote for this knowing those political realities that I have just set out?
One of my colleagues yesterday quite correctly pointed out that compromise is necessary in all legislation. I agree that we are called upon to do that in the parliamentary process. Every piece of legislation I know of that is presented to this House is an attempt to balance two or more competing interests and we, as legislators, try to strike a reasonable balance.
However, I believe that when all is said and done there are some beliefs that cannot be compromised. There is a set of core beliefs in all of us which defines who we are as human beings and what it is that we stand for in this world. I am at that point.
I have had to face a decision like this on a previous occasion. Sixteen years ago I was a member of a university student council. We were asked to approve a student council departmental budget that dealt with many aspects of health. Part of the money in that package would end up financing an abortion referral service. The vote that we were called upon to make was a take it or leave it proposition on the whole package. I spoke with a number of my colleagues about my concern and said that my opposition to abortion precluded my support for the package. They gave me the strong argument that if the vote was lost we would lose all the other good services included in the package. I felt then, and I believe today, that I cannot rationalize my position to that extent.
There are others in the same position as am I who have come to a different conclusion and will support this bill at second reading stage. I do not believe that they are any less right in coming to a different conclusion than me based on the same set of facts. But for me, in this debate, this is the crucial point. This is the point at which
Government Orders
Parliament is being asked to give approval in principle to something that I have always opposed. Accordingly I will vote against this bill.
If it is the will of Parliament that this bill be approved in principle, I will be among those who will say that it is preferable to none at all. But I will be among those who will say that once having been approved in principle there is nothing that can be done to turn it into a pro-life bill. The attempt would be procedurally out of order, I think, and would probably destroy any consensus that has developed up to this point, but that argument is for another day.
For me the way is clear; I will vote against this at second reading. But being sure in my own mind as to what I should do does not make the decision much easier. It is a free vote for members of Parliament in the Progressive Conservative Party. If in coming to my conclusion I had been pressured by my colleagues to do something against my conscience, my decision would have been easier, but that was not the case. I was and am free to speak my mind and vote according to my conscience and I think that is crucial.
As have all members of Parliament, I have received a great deal of mail on this subject. One man recently wrote to me and said that I had an obligation to do what a majority of the people want and not vote according to my conscience. I have to disagree. In the long run it would be very bad for Canada if members do not act and vote according to their conscience.
I thank the House and particularly those in the leadership of my party who have understood and been supportive of those for whom this decision has been so difficult.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this very important debate on Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion.
I do not think I would be exaggerating at all if I stated that this issue is one of the most difficult and contentious issues that has gripped Canadians and members of Parliament, my colleagues, in many years.
It is very difficult to deal with because the legislation as proposed deals with two very fundamental issues; the rights of women and the rights of the foetus which encompasses the sanctity of life. It is a debate on a piece of legislation, the outcome of which, regardless of defeat or approval, holds little hope of lessening the passionate and, at times, gut-wrenching and divisive debate now or in the foreseeable future. But as a legislator I bring with

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
me my own opinions, my own biases, and also my own concerns.
During this debate on this particular issue I have tried my very best to put my own point of view and my own positions aside and to listen to those who hold contrary opinions and to try to understand why they hold those contrary opinions. I have listened a lot. I have tried to understand how these individuals, whom I consider to be rational, caring, intelligent individuals, can be so far apart on such a fundamental issue as abortion.
I also want to say that I have attempted always not just to listen but to respect contrary opinions on the subject. I have defended and I will continue to defend the rights of individuals on all sides of this issue to have an opinion, to present that opinion and, most important, to be respected for having that opinion. Consequently, in return I ask nothing more than that same courtesy.
I must also state that I consider myself not just to be against abortion but to be in favour of protecting the lives of the unborn wherever and however possible. I do, however, understand the position of individuals who hold a contrary view, many of whom are my dear and longstanding friends. But as hard as I try, I simply cannot accept their conviction on the other side of this argument.
I am sure that most of us in this Chamber, no matter what point of view we hold on this particular debate, have been asked by individuals who hold different points of view what our point of view is.
There is one thing that has bothered me, although it has not happened in this House. After being asked what my position is and saying that I am probably pro-life-although I do not like the labels that this debate has forced on many of us-many times I am immediately told that I do not have a right to have an opinion because I am not a female. I fully understand some of those sentiments. But I also know, as a father of two children, that I should have some say in the rights and the future of the unborn. Many times when I am asked my opinion it is met with hostility but many times it is meet with a great deal of support.
But all of that aside, we are now in the place where a decision on this very critical piece of legislation must be made. I have listened to arguments and I suppose I am prepared to accept any bill that limits abortions to those instances where a mother's life is at risk. I suppose I am also prepared to listen to arguments concerning abortions being permitted in cases of violent crime, such as rape and incest.
I intend to support this bill at second reading solely so that it can proceed to the legislative committee for further review and to hear from Canadians on this critical issue. It is also my hope that when we do get it into committee a true debate wall take place, not the type of sterile debate that many times takes place in the House, but a true exchange of ideas across a committee table as amendments are put forward, to try to make this piece of legislation which is currently, in its present form, to me unpalatable, more palatable to myself, many of my colleagues and many Canadians.
In my view this government has a responsibility to propose legislation. It was my hope as well as the hope of millions of Canadians that this House would bring in legislation that would not just address the rights of the foetus, but a bill that sought to make a statement which indicates society's interest in the rights of the foetus.
In its ruling of last January 28, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that the state has an interest in the foetus. As Chief Justice Dickson wrote:
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.
Like Beetz and Wilson, I agree that the 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.
In other words, what he was saying is that the state has a responsibility to act on behalf of society's interest in the foetus. Many individuals such as myself waited to see such legislation that would enshrine the rights of the foetus. In late October and early November in the days preceding the introduction of Bill C-43 on November 3, the government systematically leaked bits of information which suggested that somehow the legislation that would be forthcoming would be pro-life in its form, that the
He went on to say:
November 23, 1989

great compromise had been reached and it had been reached in favour of foetal rights. In my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth.
This legislation outlaws abortion, except-and it is a very important exception-when in the opinion of a doctor the health or life of the mother is likely to be threatened. Health is then defined as being the physical, mental and psychological health; by any stretch of the imagination, a wide and sweeping definition.
What the government has really done is to introduce a bill that at first glance seems to be pro-life but in practice is actually, or could be, abortion on demand. Nowhere does this legislation mention foetal rights. The foetus is without any protection whatsoever in this bill.
The government did not have the guts to define health. Instead, it has left the entire responsibility in the hands of Canada's doctors. I know that many people think that might be appropriate. For instance, I am sure that doctors such as Henry Morgentaler must be quite satisfied. Others do not share the same definition of health.
If this bill passes unamended, I am sure that in a short period of time some medical practitioners, a very small minority, will become abortion specialists because of their very loose definition of what constitutes a risk to the health of a mother. Although the legislation says there will be some protection against this type of thing happening, I think anyone who has examined the bill and has looked at some of the recent court rulings, including the Chantal Daigle case, would question whether or not any third party intervener would have any success in laying charges or getting a prosecution against a doctor's medical opinion in this instance.
Most important, the bill does not recognize society's interest in protecting the rights of the foetus. I happen to believe that the foetus represents life and with Bill C-43 there will not be any recognition anywhere in Canada for those rights.
As I mentioned earlier, I intend to vote this legislation through on second reading to committee stage, but let me say very clearly and unequivocally that if this bill is not changed to protect the rights of the foetus, if it is not changed to more clearly define the definition of the risk to the health of the mother, I will not be able to support it on third and final reading.
Government Orders
Bill C-43 is another disguise for abortion on demand. I personally find it a bit abhorrent when I look across at the government and see how weak-kneed it was when it did not seek to put a proper piece of legislation before this House. Bill C-43 does not protect the sanctity of human life and I cannot support any legislation that completely ignores those rights.
One other thing has to be said before I conclude. There is another important piece of the puzzle that has not been addressed by this government in its legislation. This government has failed in that it has not introduced companion legislation to remove the economic and other factors that force many women to choose abortion. There should never be a case in a society as wealthy as ours, with the resources that we have, as advanced as we are, where an individual chooses to have an abortion because she simply cannot afford to have and raise her child.
Yet the government comes in with a piece of legislation which is supposed to address the problem of abortion in our society and completely fails, through legislation, through government policy, to remove those economic indications that have caused thousands too many abortions to be performed on Canadian women.
Child care is not there. Income support programs are insufficient. Family planning programs which should be taught to children at a very early age in the school system and public education and awareness are nowhere in this bill or in any piece of companion legislation put forward by this government.
Therefore, it is my opinion that this government has introduced legislation that provides for far too easy access to abortion without addressing the real causes for abortion.
I started off by indicating that this was a very difficult debate for most of us to be involved in, but it is one that none of us can afford to skirt because it is a fundamental issue.
I do not intend, I have never in the past, nor do I intend in the future to lecture those who do not subscribe to my point of view or to criticize those who, for whatever reason, find themselves in a position that they have to choose legal or illegal abortions.

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
I would hope that once this bill comes back it will have the necessary amendments to protect the rights of the foetus, that it will have a clear definition of what "at risk" means when dealing with the health of a mother and, more important, that the government will recognize its responsibility to remove the economic justification for abortion that has far too long been imposed on the women of Canada.


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, this debate is not one that is easy to address and in fact it raises some fundamental issues of life and respect for life to which all of us are committed, particularly in terms of our public representation.
I want to deal this evening, in the brief time available, with what I think are the three essential aspects of the debate on this bill. They are the issues of right to life, respect for life and responsibility for life.
Over the past number of years I have been increasingly troubled by the increasing amount of hate and animosity and the decreasing amount of understanding and insight that has occurred in trying to deal with this issue. I guess I could even say that in several elections, particularly the election of 1980,1 experienced the extent and the depth of the animosity around this particular issue.
This is not my first occasion, neither in this place nor in other places, to discuss this issue. In fact, as I was preparing for the debate, I looked up one of the House of Commons reports on Health and Welfare from 1967 and 1968 when I participated in the standing committee which, on December 18, 1967, issued its report recommending some of the changes that subsequently became the law which stood until early 1988.
Having said that, I would in no way want to suggest that I feel that I have any more expertise or right to speak on this matter than any other individual in this House. I do think, however, it is important that we understand what this debate is about. Those who have taken a strong anti-abortion position have chosen to describe their position as one of right to life. I have always felt that they had chosen the right language even if, from time to time, they demonstrated a very real lack of understanding and sensitivity and very often, and
perhaps with increasing frequency, have transmitted a message which is almost the opposite of that to which they espouse.
This is not something new. As far back as our own committee of 1967-68, in quite a lively exchange that took place on February 8,1968,1 was forced to say to one witness: "I would say though, Mr. Dehler, that your whole interpretation is founded upon a one dimensional view of life, that life can only be looked at and human life as being much more than its isolated physical aspect in its biological sense". I said that because it seemed to me that so often the discussions that took place around the issue of right to life were, at best, narrow and superficial and, at worst, even contradictory.
I guess another example of that is to suggest that I often found that people who were the most passionate on the issue of right to life were equally at home with the feeling that we should retain and, in many instances, expand the use of the death penalty. I was never quite able to reconcile that dichotomy. I believe that in the matter of life one cannot disengage for other reasons.
We must look at what the issue is with respect to this right to life. We are dealing, as almost all members have said, with a very unique form of life in terms of the foetus, but in dealing with that unique form of life we must remember that there are some very real limits and those limits are rarely, if ever, recognized or dealt with.
The Canadian Medical Association, in its own communication in response to this legislation, has said:
Abortion, as interpreted by the Canadian Medical Association, is the act of termination of a pregnancy before foetal viability.
The words "foetal viability" hardly ever enter into the discussion. But when the Supreme Court was faced with its own decision it said, and I quote here Chief Justice Dickson in interpreting that decision:
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.
I have to believe that the Chief Justice, in speaking not only for himself but for others in the court, was presenting something that was profoundly important. We really have to ask the question: whose life are we concerned with? I think it comes out, both directly and indirectly, in


the things that people have been saying about the legislation.
Tom Harper who is an Anglican priest and writes for The Toronto Star, in writing a column in justification of this legislation, uses this paragraph:
What having an abortion in the Criminal Code says to me and to all
Canadians is that all human life is sacred and so nobody can terminate
it merely on a whim or to remedy one's own basic stupidity.
Now notions of "whim" or "stupidity" related to those who make the awesome decision to have an abortion reflect an attitude which, unfortunately, is all too pervasive and current.
Even more troubling is the recent press statement of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on the introduction of this bill where on three separate occasions they refer to the dignity, value and protection of the unborn child and of children. That is very important and is to be applauded. But this same press release makes absolutely no reference whatever to women!
I find it passing strange that a body that would speak for close to half the population of this country, over half of whom would be women, would not recognize the fundamental respect for rights and life that exist with the mother and the potential mother in each and every instance. I have to say as a church person myself that we have a lot to answer for. A lot of it goes back deep into our own scriptural heritage. I could refer to the symbolism of Adam's rib' and of the notions from Genesis of "man having dominion over every living thing" as creating an expectation that is altogether paternalistic and degrading ultimately for half the population of this planet.
We are in fundamental terms looking at responsibility for life itself. Where does that responsibility rest? Well, in the first instance with the very life that gives new life opportunity, and that is woman. I ask you, how can we be expected to believe that we are going to make some advance over the present agony that exists, not only for those who are at different ends of this debate, but for the tens of thousands of women who face this decision, if we focus so narrowly and exclusively on only one aspect of that dilemma?
Government Orders
I think the issue quite fundamentally is one of responsibility for life and responsible decision, and I have said for some time now that I think we have to face the issue of responsibility squarely. What disturbs me so much about this legislative initiative is that it moves that responsibility away from the women themselves and back into the courts and the Criminal Code. The language would imply, if not invoke criminality. It appears to do one thing while, in effect, apparently intends the opposite. This does no service to the law and does no service or respect to women.
It has already been mentioned and I would mention it again that there are major issues of counselling and support and understanding with respect to the issue of abortion itself that have not been addressed. There is the scandalous situation of the inequality of treatment that exists for women across this country which has become more pronounced in recent years with the actions of my native province, Prince Edward Island, and now Nova Scotia.
This legislation-and I am no lawyer-troubles me because it might create the kind of incentive for further inequality that none of us should be willing to accept. This legislation in no way meets the basic concerns that all Canadians have, namely, to ensure that all members of society are treated with dignity and respect and invested with the responsibility that we all seek to bear.
This legislation is troubling and not acceptable in its present form.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion.
There is no doubt that Bill C-43 concerns a very serious and difficult issue which is of great importance to all Canadians. However, what is in question with this bill is its ability to adequately address the issue of abortion.
Matters which relate to life and death are not easy to deal with. During the last Parliament the debate on the death penalty certainly proved that. Yet the members who were involved in that specific debate eventually chose the preservation of life rather than have the state take it away. Unfortunately, in this case Bill C-43 does not provide complete protection for foetal life.

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
Bill C-43 is a feeble attempt by the federal government to escape a very difficult issue. It has failed in drafting legislation to protect the unborn. Bill C-43 is merely an example of the government trying to appease the opposing sides in this issue. Such an exercise is futile. It pleases no one. It will do very little to settle the abortion issue. Far more importantly, this bill does not insure an unquestionable and most basic right in any society, that being the right of life.
I respect the views that have been presented thus far by all members on Bill C-43. I know that the decisions reached by my colleagues to support or oppose this bill were not arrived at quickly or without serious consideration.
In the past year, every member has had contact with representatives of the pro-life and pro-choice organizations. As members, we are also aware of the views held by a large number of our constituents. I would certainly like to thank my constituents and Canadians from all parts of the country who have written and talked to me on this issue. Their personal opinions were valuable to me and I certainly know that they were very sincere.
During the 1988 election campaign I clearly identified myself as a pro-life supporter. I believe that life begins at conception. I also believe that there must be legislative protection for the unborn to guarantee their right to life. Since being elected as the member of Parliament for Stormont-Dundas my position has not changed nor has it diminished. I have always shared my views on abortion with my constituents. The people of Stormont-Dundas know where I stand.
Bill C-43 is an attempt by the government to apply a political answer to an issue that is way beyond politics. Whatever position we as legislators take on abortion, it is understood that lives are in the balance. This fact is indisputable. We are debating legislation which, if passed, would permit the ending of human life. This House, and our entire society for that matter, cannot view this in any other light. Abortion ends the natural progression of human reproduction. In the final analysis, if this bill is passed without protecting the right to life of the unborn, our society as a whole will be the real loser.
We can argue numerous points in this debate. We will, however, actually end up weighing the value of human
life. Whatever we argue and however passionately we present our arguments, the hard fact remains that if Bill C-43 is accepted then there will be no protection for the unborn. We would be sanctioning the right for life to end.
Every member of this House knows the multitude of issues tied in with the subject of abortion. There is a myriad of questions involving issues of a legal, ethical, moral, societal, medical, religious and constitutional nature. With such an array of items to consider, it is easy for this government to present Bill C-43, and hope that the Canadian people accept it.
I cannot accept this bill and I am certain that a good number of Canadians will not either. It was incumbent on the government to introduce abortion legislation when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the previous abortion law. The government, however, took a considerable amount of time to present such legislation.
While this issue is certainly complex, it is by no means a new one. I believe the government would have been content to sit back and do nothing except that two sensational cases arose this past summer which forced the government into action.
These court cases made it clear that the government could not hide from its responsibilities. The pressure for the government to act reached a point where it had to. We see the results of the government's response here in the contents of Bill C-43. One could say that Bill C-43 is a compromise. Unfortunately, it is impossible to compromise on matters which involve life and death. As is to be expected, both sides of the abortion issue have condemned this bill.
As I have said, I support the pro-life position with regard to abortion. I formulated my position as a result of a number of influences. Certainly the environment in which I was raised played a part in my own views on a very personal matter. The information that was available to me and the many discussions I had were also significant factors.
I do, however, believe that my views reflect a reverence for human life and I know I am not alone in this thinking. Society has a fundamental duty to protect and foster human life and its development. To lessen that duty in any manner would be inconsistent with our social and moral values.

No one segment of our society should have the right to decide whether another life can continue or not. The rights of one must not take precedence over the rights of another. It is not a question of gender here, it is a question of life.
We as a society must adopt an attitude which clearly states that all life is precious. We have to accept the responsibility to share in the nurturing and care of both mother and child, bom and unborn, so that human life is supported and enriched. It is all too simplistic to end the life of a human foetus. Every effort must be made to preserve life.
We have to pursue all avenues in making it easier to continue with a pregnancy, rather than to end one. If we really believe that the abortion of a human foetus solves the problem then we as a society have failed.
In conclusion, Bill C-43 must be defeated, but the matter will not end there. We will have to present an acceptable alternative, one which will take a firm stand and enshrine the principle of the right to life of the unborn.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate with sorrow in my heart. I have heard my colleagues on both sides of the House express their opinion. I agree with some of them and agree less with others.
Let me take a few minutes in this House to share my deepest convictions with you.
Mr. Speaker, as member for La Prairie since 1984, in the service of my fellow citizens, I was elected according to the ethical principles found in our modem democracy. I would like to tell hon. members to ponder this principle: "Do not seek greatness and strive for honour, but excel in the practice of virtue."
This maxim of our philosophy is the very essence of what guides me in this debate and all the debates in which I have taken part in this House since I was elected to the Commons.
I have always professed good humour, sincerity and discussion. My trademark is open-mindedness and moderation in all my dealings with fellow human beings. Mr. Speaker, in my humble opinion, patience, kindness, trust, self-knowledge, but especially warmth and love for humankind, justice and honesty, should guide this debate, in spite of everything.
Government Orders
For years, Mr. Speaker, although I lacked a university degree, I pursued my education methodically, I questioned and consulted and today I speak in this debate, as in all others, as my conscience dictates.
Mr. Speaker, I listen to my constituents and I heed their advice. Such are the very premises which guide my choice when it is not tied to a party policy and when that policy does not disturb my conscience.
Mr. Speaker, human laws do not supersede God's commandment: Thou shall not kill. The Supreme Court of Canada does not consider the foetus as a human being, but geneticists tell us that the first cell division occurs 30 minutes after fecundation. Six days later the foetus measure 2 centimetres and the embryo is taking shape. The heart muscle begins to beat on the 25th day. After 30 days most of the organs essential to survival are already growing.
Mr. Speaker, foetus is the name given to the child in the womb of his mother from the moment he can be recognized as a human being, after about two months. To destroy a foetus is to get rid of a child to be bom.
What is life, Mr. Speaker? When does life begin? At conception? When the cell first separates? Even scientists cannot agree. Have they proof to state unequivocally and absolutely when life begins?
What is happening to the conscience of man for whom killing is no longer a question of ethics but more often than not a question of comfort, luxury, materialism? What is happening to men, they who no longer feel love in their heart for a child to be bom?
Mr. Speaker, nowadays we are witness to too much youth abuse. Abortion is the killing of the smallest of the small. Who will come to their defence? Who will give them a chance to claim their place under the sun? How many more potential human beings are we going to destroy this way? At the rate we are proceeding we will do away with the next generation before they are even bom.
If we give the permission to destroy, how many Canadians will see the light of day? Mr. Speaker, will the next generation have to be ever grateful to their parents for not killing them? What are the moral, mental, psychological and spiritual consequences for future generations? What is the future of a civilized country like Canada from which a number of developing countries draw inspiration? Are we going to have another genocide? Will countries that look up to us follow our example? Will they not be left with the impression that we Canadians can afford to do without human beings,

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
important as they are for the survival of our country. We have it made, they are not so well off, so should they not do as we do?
If we look at what is going on world-wide in all so-called underdeveloped cultures we realize that respect for life and procreation as well as the assurance of having many offsprings is a major priority in many countries.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, why not set up preventive and educative programs, make available birth control methods, facilitate adoption programs, and assist needy women with alternatives which are less radical then abortion.
Let us listen to our own heart, let compassion and love guide our decision, this love which we feel for other human beings. Let us treat life with the respect it deserves and we will be shown respect.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-43 is to amend the Criminal Code. I understand that the area of Federal jurisdiction is rather limited, health care regulation being a Provincial responsability.
I am aware that Bill C-43 does not legalise abortion. Yet, under Clause 1, an abortion induced by a physician will be deemed legal when the health or life of a female person is threatened. I understand that health means physical, mental and psychological health.
Mr. Speaker, we are not sanctioning abortion on demand, but we are making it a legal medical procedure when performed for health reasons.
Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will physicians be called upon to exterminate the poor, the old and the needy on behalf of the state which is shirking its responsibilities by renouncing all ethical and moral rules?
That is not a solution, Mr. Speaker. The legislators' duty is to be the guardians of public morality. To criminalize abortion is not an ideal solution. Entrusting physicians with the responsibility of the state to make social judgments is not an acceptable solution.
With an heavy heart, Mr. Speaker, I must inform my constituents and my colleagues in the House that I just cannot support Bill C-43.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundum):: Mr. Speaker, there is an ad in today's Globe and Mail which states:
"Men for Women's Choice.
This Personal Decision is No Crime.
I rise in the House to concur with that sentiment. Underneath the ad is a list of several names, I suppose hundreds, I have not counted them. I am sorry that my name does not appear among them.
I would like to read the ad, because I think it says in all the essence what I stand for personally and which I believe my party's stand tries to say:
No government should be able to force a woman to bear a child against her will. The proposed law would make women criminals for taking a personal decision to seek an abortion. Abortion has no place in the Criminal Code.
Like a growing number of men, we do not think that men should control women. Men ought to have equal say and responsibility in a decision to parent. But ultimately, if there is a dispute, the decision to end a pregnancy must be a woman's choice because it is her body.
No husband, no boyfriend, no judge, no doctor, no politician, should control a woman's body. Ever.
Governments should act to ensure access to abortion in every province and every territory. More and better sex education and birth control information should also be provided.
It goes on to say that: "Now is the time for men to speak out. Show your support for women's choice by letting-" and I will not bother to name the politicians who ask us to let them know-although, of course, it includes the Prime Minister and all the other Members of Parliament-how we feel.
I rise today on this issue in as sincere a plea as I have ever made in my life that this place should not recriminalize abortion. Abortion is a health matter, not a political matter, not a criminal matter. It certainly is an emotional matter. It certainly is a physical matter in every sense of our humanity. The government has said that it is a psychological matter, and it certainly is; that it is a health matter, and it certainly is. I guess there have
ijfc
m *.
1* i pi
m |
.


November 23, 1989

been some suggestions made that it is a religious matter. I presume that some of the decisions on both sides are made on the basis of a religious conviction.
The question is certainly a human rights matter without question. Fundamentally it is a power question. I will deal with some of the other questions in more detail a little later. It is an economic, sociological, educational and political matter. This piece of legislation cannot be. We cannot get ourselves involved in a criminal matter in so far as this issue is concerned.
It is a health matter in more ways than one. I would suggest that one of the most important aspects of it being a health matter is again that it is women. Why is it that in this human history of ours throughout the ages it is always women who become the victims as a result of decisions which are for the most part made by men?
Also, in so far as women are concerned and as far as the matter before us is concerned, it is a matter of rich and poor, and that is not an unusual question to be coming before this House. There are many, many things which seem to be predicated on privilege. The obvious fact is that if a woman has access to any degree of wealth, she will be able to have an abortion regardless of what is decided in this House. She will be able to have a safe abortion, perhaps not even in this country. But if she has the financial wherewithal she will be able to avail herself of a safe abortion.
That is not the case with those women who do not have much money, who do not have the financial ability to perhaps go to another province or to go to another country. Sometimes, certainly in the past, it has meant going far beyond the borders of Canada to procure something which, undoubtedly, for their psychological, mental and physical health was a necessity, but again we have injected into this discussion the whole matter of the rich and the poor.
I do not think too much has to be said about the religious connotations. Wherever religious connotations arise, I would suggest that in Canada, being a nation where church and state are essentially separate, that a religious discussion should not inject itself into the discussion in the Parliaments of this country.
Government Orders
As I mentioned, human rights are involved because I do not think the issue is abortion; the issue is the freedom to choose. The issue is the freedom of a woman to choose and the freedom not to have to be beholden to a man when she makes that choice.
I mentioned that power was an element in the discussion and this relates back to the matter of being able to choose. As the advertisement in the paper said, there is no way that a man should be able to exercise that kind of power over a woman, be he a husband or a boyfriend.
We have seen in one case this summer where that was precisely an element in what was probably the most severe distress a woman has suffered publicly in Canada for a long while. I would suggest that such a spectacle is something which surely most Canadians would have found abhorrent and would in all senses wish not to see repeated. There is an element of power in this which has to be recognized, and it is one of the main reasons why this legislation should simply not be put through.
The proposed legislation states that a woman may have an abortion if she can demonstrate physical, psychological or mental reasons for having it done. I would suggest that most Canadian women who are going to have an abortion in reality are psychologically very sound mentally and physically. In order to have the abortion they are going to have to lie and perhaps drag the physician into the matter as well, which introduces the element of criminality as far as the legislation is concerned.
I do not think that this legislation ought to be enacted, something which will stigmatize half the population of Canada permanently in law. I would strongly suggest that this legislation should be defeated.


Mr. Jacques Tetreault (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, on the issue of abortion, I am of two minds and, while appreciating one another, the two minds cannot really agree. One of those minds belongs to the member of Parliament who, being at the same time a lawyer recognizes the government has an obligation to fill a legal vacuum with something acceptable. The other is that of the man, the father, for whom life transcends every law. In other terms, Mr. Speaker, while recognizing that a bill is needed, I deplore the need for one.

Government Orders
The need for abortions is almost entirely caused by the current lack of a social conscience. Nobody could object to a therapeutic abortion, that is in the case where the life or health of the mother is really threatened.
But the other abortions, those for instance that result from a whim, vengeance, socio-economic considerations, lack of generosity, irresponsibility, immaturity-how could they be justified? Or could they only be justifiable under an enactment?
At every turn my thoughts bring me back to that starting point-the fundamentally of happy Christian ethics, and the social conscience that leads a notion to ensure its own survival. A society that eliminates its children soon after their conception is bound to disappear. There is no future for a society that refuses to be perpetuated.
It is a sad reflection, Mr. Speaker, that in Canada there were last year 65,000 therapeutic abortions as against 360,000 births. One child out of six was sacrificed.
Since the Bill was announced, there has been general dissatisfaction. Some view it as too permissive, others charge that the freedoms of women are being violated. My intention is not to deal once more with the basic issue of whether the foetus is or is not a human being.
But since a law is needed, let us take the time to look at what the physical and psychological implications are for women who will get an abortion in order to terminate a pregnancy.
Abortion is touted as the almost only and perfect solution for women faced with an unwanted pregnancy whose physical, mental and psychological health might be threatened.
But would the physical, mental and psychological health of those same women not be also threatened by an abortion?
Abortion is the radical solution to an often temporary problem. If we really want to protect the mother against the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, we should at the same time caution her against the physical and psychological dangers.
In that respect, Mr. Speaker, let me join Father Jacques Croteau who had this to say: "I would be the last one to accuse a mother who had gotten an abortion of
deliberately wanting to kill her child. Things almost never happen that way, either in the mind or the heart of a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy, in view of the fears, panic, anxiety, even distress that can grip her."
But in practice, once the abortion is performed and the baby is no more, many deep and at times indelible psychological and physical scars remain.
Last January, right after his election as President of the United States, George Bush said at the Roe vs. Wade rally, and I quote:

Before you begin your march today, on this first Monday of my presidency, I wanted to take just a few brief moments to restate my firm support of our cause, and to share with you my deep personal concern about our American tragedy of abortion on demand.
We are concerned about abortion because it deals with the lives of two human beings, mother and child. I know there are people of good will who disagree, but after years of sober and serious reflection on the issue, this is what I think. I think the Supreme Court's decision in Roe versus Wade was wrong and should be overturned. I think America needs a human life amendment. And I think when it comes to abortion there is a better way, the way of adoption, the way of life.
I know that you and hundreds of thousands with you across the country have raised a voice of moral gravity about abortion, a voice of principle, a full voice that properly asserts and affirms the basic dignity of human life-
I promise you that the President hears you now and stands with you in a cause that must be won.

What strikes us at the outset is that President Bush talks about two separate entities: the child and the mother, which raises a question: Why is it only by destroying the former that we can solve the problem of the latter's unwanted pregnancy? Why not a life-enhancing solution rather than a death sentence?
I think it is unfair to the mother faced with an unwanted pregnancy to present abortion as the only option. If it is indeed the case, where is her freedom of choice? And does the woman asking for an abortion know all the potential and likely consequences of her decision? Does she know, for example, that abortion has been linked with subsequent problems such as more difficult pregnancies and deliveries, congenital deformations, ectopic pregnancies, psychological problems, suicidal tendencies, et cetera?
November 23, 1989

Even though such problems are not common, we cannot say that "it only happens to others" and no woman can say beforehand that she will be spared.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, abortion is not an exclusively male or female issue; it concerns an entire people that is in danger of disappearing sooner or later if its children, the hope of the future, keep getting killed.
In Quebec, for example, there are only 1.4 children per family, whereas it would take at least 2.1 to maintain the population. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that a society which has no more hope, no more desire to perpetuate itself is bound to disappear shortly.
The bill now before us must be compatible with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Mor-gentaler case. Elowever, this decision does not prevent Parliament from prescribing penalties that would forbid abortion at any stage of pregnancy, unless continuing the pregnancy would endanger the mother's life or health. In this case, most judges said unequivocally that choosing a criterion based on the protection of life and health is not incompatible with the right to security of the person guaranteed by the Charter. Physical, mental or psychological health: a woman who really wants an abortion or believes that it is the only way out for her can easily find herself in one of these three categories, with this bill. That is just what I have trouble with.
While I realize the need to legislate abortion to make it accessible in certain cases, I cannot accept all the terms of the bill. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I fear that with the present terminology, refusing abortion will become the exception, whereas abortion itself should be an exception.
And now we are back at the starting point, the basis of a responsible society which, far beyond its rights and freedoms, would assert its obligations and responsibilities.
But society needs tools, and it is the role of the state to ensure that all citizens can live and grow in a climate of freedom, balanced by rights and responsibilities that must be respected. The role of a responsible government is also to provide everyone with social measures to meet all needs.
The State should open up other avenues, to provide hope and suggest positive and viable solutions.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, we see the despair of women faced with an unwanted pregnancy and we also see the despair of thousands of Canadian couples whom nature has not endowed with the gift of fertility. These couples would have no hesitation in spending nine months helping a pregnant woman who cannot keep her child. Mr. Speaker, from a strictly objective point of view, adoption is certainly the most positive and most equitable answer. It releases the natural mother from a responsibility she is not able to assume, and more than meets the expectations of couples who until then had no hope of becoming parents. And I think adoption is a unique opportunity to overcome despair by giving the gift of unselfish generosity.
I realize that many women worry that they will not be able to give up their child if they carry it to term, and they think it will be less painful to have an abortion. This is where we have a responsibility to counsel and help these women.
Besides caring for his patients, a doctor has an obligation to protect and save lives. What would happen if the doctor became the cornerstone of a system for protecting life, for encouraging the woman who is pregnant and for providing hope for couples who cannot have children? If all those who are pro-life were to make a common effort, many solutions would emerge and many lives would be saved. It would mean an ongoing presence at the doctor's office in the form of appropriate literature, resource persons to support and counsel the pregnant mother, a database with names of prospective parents, and so forth. All these couples who despair of ever having children would be delighted to help contribute to the life-creating process.
As a member of a Christian society and of this government, I feel responsible for protecting life. I think it is time we dropped intransigence and systematic opposition in favour of understanding and compromise. It is time society realized where its responsibilities lie, otherwise the state will have to take charge of our collective conscience.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the definition of health will be amended to make it more restrictive. I believe that every doctor who is asked to do an abortion should immediately suggest another alternative. Then and only then will women truly have a choice.

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, I have just explained my philosophy, which reflects the tenets of the Christian conscience and my social conscience, which dictate my behaviour.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the issue of abortion and also to speak to Bill C-43.
Let me just say at the outset that I consider abortion one of the most important and difficult issues that we have ever had to face as a legislature. It is also one of the most difficult issues that any individual has to face. We are debating an issue which strikes at the core of our belief system. Every individual who enters the abortion debate brings with him or her a different conception of the meaning of the purpose of life, of our collective existence, and of our society. I for one believe that life begins at conception. All of my religious and rural upbringing has given me a strong respect for the preciousness of life.
Abortion demands and produces more than opinion. It demands and produces belief, and beliefs are what people live for and what some people quite frankly are willing to die for.
I know that all of us in this House understand the depth of the sentiment involved in this debate and of the disagreement within this House and in communities throughout Canada. We see it when we go to our constituencies and talk to Canadians. I have received letters from hundreds of residents throughout Haldimand-Norfolk, each one of them with strong views and each one vastly different from the next.
All those views are represented in this House tonight. The predominant viewpoint and opinion expressed by the people of Haldimand-Norfolk to me is one that leans toward a pro-life meaning.
I have met people from Dunnville. In fact, in my constituency office last Friday I was to meet a small group of people concerned about this issue. Well over 100 people packed into my office. We had a good discussion about the bill because they are concerned about it.
They are concerned about what some people in this House like to call a compromise solution, and they did not believe there was a compromise. It was their point of view that this bill should be defeated. I explained to them my belief that if the bill were defeated after third reading, we would not have another opportunity in this House to debate the issue. I still believe that. I believe
that this government is not committed to bringing forth another piece of legislation if this bill is defeated.
I am left with the question as to whether or not this bill goes far enough toward a compromise or whether or not this bill could be amended at report stage in such a way that a compromise solution could be found that would be acceptable to all in this House.
I believe that if I project my views and the amendments proposed by certain members of this House, we are going to get extremes again. I have been talking to different members throughout this House and have looked at the amendments they want to bring in. Quite frankly they are still at the extremes. I believe that if a bill is going to come out of this, we are going to have to compromise. That would mean that I would have to compromise my beliefs and that many members of this House will have to compromise theirs too.
But I feel that it is important to have a piece of legislation on the books because some law is better than no law. I believe that if we defeat this motion at second reading we will have no law and that the rights of the foetus will not be protected.
What we are talking about tonight is what is right and what is wrong, and who decides this issue? I believe that we as a legislature must decide. Our decision must be based on the full exercise of our collective mental and spiritual capabilities.
I do not believe that it is preferable for Parliament to stay out of the abortion debate. In fact, I do not believe it is possible to stay out of the abortion debate. We are dealing with the fundamental rights of human beings. If we do not decide, we are saying that we believe that somebody else should. With the depth of belief on abortion and the depth of opposition on abortion, I do not believe that anyone else can decide but the highest court in the land-Parliament.
To abdicate our responsibility to legislate on abortion would have just as much impact on the lives of Canadians as accepting and fulfilling our capacity to legislate. We need to find a solution that is workable, and by that I mean one that the majority of us here in this House with our strongly held beliefs can support. Unfortunately, I believe that the bill we have before us in its present form fails in its attempt to provide a workable solution.
I have heard many of my colleagues in this House observe that in a perfect world we would not have to legislate on abortion. In a perfect world every pregnancy would be a wanted pregnancy. A world of only wanted pregnancies could come about in two ways as I see it. Birth control, if accessible and safe enough for all women and men, would allow for absolute control over
November 23, 1989

our reproductive capacities. Every pregnancy would, therefore, be out of choice.
To say that every pregnancy would be a wanted pregnancy would also mean that our society, if more supportive of women, if more developed in its ability to provide for the financial and emotional well-being of every pregnant woman, every mother and child, would demonstrate a collective responsibility for our children.
This is not a perfect world and in terms of recognizing our collective responsibility for children, it is unjustifiably far from being a perfect world.
When we talk of abortion, of the rights of the mother and the rights of the foetus, we must recognize that giving birth, creating life, is a unique occurrence in our lives and it creates equally unique emotional ties.
The relationship between a mother and child is one of dependancy. The child is dependant on the mother for life but the mother in turn is dependent on her child, on her immediate surroundings and on society at large for support. In turn, we in society are dependent on children. They are our future.
I believe that we as a society have failed to recognize our interdependency. Too often, women who have children bear the responsibility on their own. Single mothers still face emotional and financial hardship.
I do not believe that abortion is the answer. While I believe that we have a responsibility to protect the rights of the pregnant woman, I do not believe that open access to abortion is in the best interests of anyone in the long run.
I do not believe that this bill contributes in any positive way to addressing the problems that exist vis-a-vis the rights of women and society's interests in the protection of the foetus.
This bill is nothing close to what I feel would represent a compromise. The bill gives only the most empty recognition of society's interests in protecting the rights of the foetus. While recognizing that abortion is not
Government Orders
condoned by society, it proceeds to negate this principle by allowing abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
This bill represents an amendment to the criminal code and yet the maximum sentence is two years. If the bill purports to see unjustified abortion as a crime, then I think higher possible sentences are necessary.
The bill also fails to make a distinction between illegal abortions performed by medical practitioners and non-licensed practitioners. I do not feel that the bill's provision for abortion to be performed on the determination of one medical doctor is sufficient for an objective determination. I believe that this bill's failure to define what is meant by health when determining a legal basis for abortion would have serious repercussions were it to become law.
I will not be supporting this bill. It gives no substantive recognition to the rights of the foetus and is therefore not an acceptable compromise.
The justice minister has said that while some amendments would be possible, amendments which would substantively alter the bill would not be welcome. If providing for the protection of the foetus can be seen to so alter this so-called compromise bill, then the government must admit that it has failed and it must find a workable bill.
I call upon this government to present a bill to the House which would truly strike a balance for the rights of women and the rights of the foetus. Hopefully, with amendments after second reading which address the main issue of the rights of the foetus to survive, the right to life of the foetus, I believe that possibly we could get a compromise in this House.
This bill goes nowhere toward giving that compromise and I cannot at this time, in any way, support it, though I will continue to look at the issue. I will continue to discuss with my colleagues on all sides of the House what they feel to be compromise solutions and what they feel can be done to this bill to make it more workable. Quite frankly, I do not see this bill as a compromise. I do not see it protecting the rights of the foetus. If it stays this way, if there are no changes after second reading, if this

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
government is not willing to accept amendments then I will not support this bill on third reading.


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this topic tonight with less enthusiasm than I have brought to any other duty that I have had as a minister or as a member of this House.
Like so many of my colleagues, I wish that this decision had been someone else's responsibility but it is not. This is an issue that has afforded me more personal anguish than any other debate in which I have participated in my five years in this House.
When the Supreme Court struck down the previous law on abortion almost two years ago, we tried here in this House to build a framework upon which society could arbitrate this clash of fundamental rights. We failed. Now we find ourselves facing this question again, and perhaps this is appropriate.
Thousands of Canadians each year face the dilemma of an unplanned pregnancy and for them it is not an issue that they can avoid, it is an immediate and a pressing problem.
In the last two years we have watched as private citizens found themselves before the courts of law and before a far more brutal court of public opinion and media exposure. It is hardly appropriate that we should stand by while young people confront an intrusive review of their personal lives and motivations when they seek to define their rights under the law.
Abortion has been an issue of debate in my riding through two national elections. Indeed, even in the election of 1988, when free trade filled the newspapers and the nightly news broadcasts in Hamilton, Stoney Creek, Grimsby and Lincoln, the issue I heard about most often at the front door of thousands of homes was abortion.
In those two national campaigns, while there was no clear consensus in my region, there were a number of points upon which my constituents clearly agreed. First among these was the clear message that abortion should
not be considered as an alternative method of birth control.
Second, the role of a doctor was seen by most people as essential to ensure about the safe medical procedure and also a degree of professional counsel for the individual making this difficult decision.
Finally, the people of my region clearly believed that Parliament has a role, a duty to provide leadership and to attempt to fashion as best it could a compromise which respects the rights and the views of everyone concerned.
I believe that this bill meets these conditions and that the vast majority of people in the communities throughout my riding will agree that this bill is as good a compromise as could be created with the deeply divided environment which surrounds this discussion.
Clearly not everyone supports the concept of compromise. In the last few weeks we have heard many voices raised against this bill. Some pro-choice supporters, such as the New Democratic Party sitting opposite, will vote en bloc against this bill because it does not provide abortion on demand. The leader of the NDP has even suggested that the government should deny provinces funding for essential medical services unless they agree to guarantee the availability of abortion services.
On the other hand, there are voices arguing with great sincerity that the right to life is pre-eminent and that Parliament's paramount duty is to protect that right even when it collides with other rights. Is this an option open to us? Could Parliament move today to ban abortion altogether?
The judgment of the Supreme Court indicates clearly that to do so would be simply to invite another successful challenge under the Charter of Rights.
We should remember that in the landmark Morgental-er decision, Chief Justice Dickson wrote:
Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus
to term- is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus
an infringement of the security of the person.
This government does not support or encourage abortion. Indeed, in this bill we will make it a criminal offence to perform an abortion except in the consideration of a threat to the health of a woman. We believe that a qualified medical practitioner is the appropriate person to judge this question and, in stating that, we put
November 23, 1989

our trust in the ethics and judgment of the women and men of Canada's medical community.
My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in speaking to this bill made it clear that the government will redouble its effort to help Canadians avoid unplanned pregnancies and the agonizing choices that follow.
As a woman and as a mother, I know that women who choose to have an abortion do not make the decision lightly. In many cases, the individuals may feel that no alternative exists because of their economic or social situation. We owe it to these people to do whatever we can to help them avoid the problem in the first place and to provide all the possible alternatives to abortion in cases where unplanned pregnancies have occurred.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare mentioned some of these measures that are planned. They include increased research into family planning, including contraception, continued funding of Planned Parenthood of Canada and measures to encourage more pregnant women to consider adoption.
We must remember that young people in Canada today are exposed to a far more chaotic social environment than the one which most of the members in this House experienced. If we do not take steps as a society to provide greater stability and to support the individual, we can scarcely be surprised when that individual faces problems which might not occur if the educational, religious and family systems were all as effective as we would like them to be.
In two elections I told the people of my region that I did not believe in abortion as a method of birth control, but that I could not support legislation that took away the right of a woman or, where necessary, parents of an under-aged child to make a decision, no matter how painful, to end a pregnancy. This is a matter for a woman in consultation with her doctor and with the guidance of her God. This bill is consistent with that belief and I would urge the House to support it.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues in this House I have been flooded with letters and phone calls from my constituents. Admittedly, opinions are diametrically opposed on
Government Orders
the issue of abortion. Some firmly believe that life begins at conception and have urged me to support a legislative measure which would be aimed at protecting the foetus right from the moment of conception. Others do not share that view. I respect the opinion of each individual.
I listened with interest to the remarks made on this subject by all Members of the House who have also heard from their constituents.
I recall the comments of the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration, the Member for Rimous-ki-Temiscouata, who told us about a family father who said he was in favour of this Bill but who, to his 13-year-old daughter who asked him what he would do if she came home pregnant, replied: If you chose to interrupt pregnancy we would take all available means. On the other hand, if you wished to keep the child we would want you to lead a normal and happy life and we would help you raise the child as if he or she were our own.
I should like to direct a question to Members of the House. If a young girl in such circumstances decided to interrupt pregnancy, would we be right to say that she is committing a crime? Are we justified to make a young girl of 13 or 14 a possible accomplice of a crime for having obtained an abortion if she does not meet the requirements of this legislation?
Because, if I am not mistaken, that is what could happen with the bill we are considering today.
Mr. Speaker, one of the principles of democratic societies is that the state should not tell everyone what to do. Therefore the state must allow every woman to choose freely according to her own philosophy or her own religious beliefs.

It has long been accepted in western society that individual rights are the basis of our concept of human dignity and liberal democracy. I voted for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1981 because I believed that the courts had a role to play in defining the rights of Canadians and in setting limits to governmental action.
In the Morgentaler decision, Madam Justice Wilson puts it this way: "The rights guaranteed in the Charter erect around each individual, metaphorically speaking, an invisible fence over which the state will not be

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
allowed to trespass. The role of the courts is to map out, piece by piece, the parameters of the fence".
Respect for individual decision-making in matters of fundamental personal importance is how Madam Justice Wilson summarizes the philosophy underlining the Charter and indeed our democratic traditions. She decides that these rights apply to women and, in particular, to a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy.
She explains why only a woman can make this decision in language which I feel bears repeating in this House:
This decision is one that will have profound psychological, economic and social consequences for the pregnant woman. The circumstances giving rise to it can be complex and varied and there may be, and usually are powerful considerations militating in opposite directions. It is a decision that deeply affects the way the woman thinks about herself and her relationship to others and to society at large. It is not just a medical decision; it is a profound social and ethical one as well. Her response to it will be the response of the whole person.
I agree with Madam Justice Wilson that a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy is a fundamental human right protected by the charter and by her democratic traditions. This bill denies this right and therefore I cannot support it.
Indeed, the bill makes abortion illegal. Rather than assuring access to safe abortion services throughout Canada, the government reduces access by threatening doctors with criminal action. It makes women possible accessories to a crime. It invites third party interventions. It fails to address prevention or unwanted pregnancies. It is a given that we all want to reduce the numbers of abortions but this bill will not reduce the numbers of abortion. Every year there are about 360,000 births and about 65,000 abortions in Canada. I do not think that any member of this House can seriously maintain that we can significantly reduce the number of abortions by prohibition or by criminalizing abortion. I would remind hon. members abortions are illegal in Ireland but that that country has one of the highest abortion rates in the world. To reduce the number of abortions we have to on the one hand reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and on the other hand ensure that women who decide to carry their pregnancy to term know that they are doing so in a supportive environment.
The only effective tool for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies is education, particularly for our most vulnerable group, the young. As a society we must address prevention in an active fashion. We must increase education about responsible sexuality. We must increase the involvement of men in family planning and support continued research into acceptable and safe birth control measures for both men and women.
I certainly agree that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting potential children and members of society but this rings hollow when women cannot find adequate day care, when single parent women are among the poorest people in Canada and when one in six Canadian children is being raised in poverty.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in connection with Bill C-43, an act with respect to abortion. It is a matter which is very controversial and very sensitive.
My own views on this subject are very well known indeed. As you may be aware, I was nominated to stand for Parliament back in 1982.1 spent some two years going door to door in my constituency and at many of those doors I was asked the question where I stood on this issue. On each and every occasion I indicated that I stood on the pro-life side of the issue.
That was not the last time that my views were made known because during the last term of Parliament I frequently rose in this House and made statements on the subject, all of which reflected my own views and personal beliefs, that of a pro-life position. I might say that about a year ago, last Christmas, I was nominated by a well-known radio broadcaster in the city of Toronto as the creep of the year as a result of my pro-life position. I base my own position very clearly on what I think and believe are undisputed medical facts with respect to this matter.
First of all, as I understand it, and I do not believe it is disputed in any way medically or scientifically, immediately upon the union of a man's sperm with a woman's egg, that is fertilization, cellular development begins. Second, the sex is determined at the single cell stage by the X and Y chromosomes carried in the father's sperm cell. At the single cell stage the egg is alive and is human
November 23, 1989

and has a sex, either male or female. It immediately begins the growth process which continues from then on until adulthood.
Third, in the first week the division of the cells continue. Next, after 18 days the heartbeat can be detected. At 30 days, the foundations of the brain, spinal cord, nerves and sense organs are complete. There are eyes, ears, a mouth, kidneys, a liver and blood circulation. At 43 days brain waves can be detected. At six weeks nerves and muscles begin working together, the skeleton is fully formed but made of cartilage. Lips become sensitive to the touch. At seven weeks all internal organs are present. The stomach produces digestive juices, the liver manufactures red blood cells, the kidneys eliminate uric acid from the blood; the legs, ankles and toes are formed.
At eight weeks, lines of the hands develop that will remain as a distinctive feature throughout the entire life of an individual. At eight and a half weeks, the child squints, the fingers close into a fist if the palm is touched.
At 10 weeks the thyroid and adrenalin glands function. At 12 weeks, the child kicks, turns his feet and curls and fans his toes, swallows, inhales, exhales, sucks its thumb. From 16 to 20 weeks hair grows on the head, eyebrows and eyelashes appear, the child sleeps and wakes and it can be roused from sleep by external noises. And from there on, as you are well aware, it continues to grow and to mature.
In addition to that, the medical profession is now able to operate on the brain and urinary tract of an unborn child and a foetus can be kept alive in a hospital outside the mother's womb just 26 weeks from conception. I do not believe that any of those facts are in dispute by anyone, whether a scientist or a member of this House. No matter what side he be on, I have never heard anyone dispute those facts. It is on that basis that I have come to my own position, a pro-life position.
What we have before us tonight, Bill C-43, is a bill that has been arrived at after an awful lot of discussion and an awful lot of debate. Mr. Speaker, you are aware as I am of a good deal of that debate.
For me, it began in the last term of Parliament. It was one that caused an awful lot of emotion and concern
Government Orders
within the government caucus, it was one that was the subject of very lengthy debates. It was one that was subject not only to very lengthy debates but very emotional debates; debates in which each and every person on each and every conceivable side of this issue put their views very strongly, very firmly, very forcibly and very passionately.
It was not just within the government caucus. Certainly the same process took place within cabinet, within committees of caucus and within the caucus itself. Out of that has come this bill, Bill C-43.
There are certain aspects of this bill which I find appealing. This bill, for instance, makes the inducing of an abortion an offence under the Criminal Code. It also rejects the gestational approach to abortion and it recognizes implicitly, although not explicitly, the right to life from conception.
The problems that I have with this bill, as many other people have, is that unfortunately the bill's exemptions are far wider than I want. You know and I know and members of this House and the public know that the Prime Minister has said that in spite of their personal views all cabinet ministers must vote for this bill. I have wrestled with that issue very long and very hard. I spent a good many sleepless nights on this issue and I want to tell you I have not finished wrestling with it. I continue to wrestle with this issue.
I am one who believes that this bill needs quite a few amendments. Many have been suggested and I know that if and when it goes to committee there will be a number of amendments put forward.
There has been one in particular that I put forward the last time this matter was debated in this House in 1988. It has to do with the health care workers and a conscience clause for health care workers.
You may or may not remember that in the debate of 1988 on this subject, I indicated that I felt very strongly that any legislation with respect to abortion should include a conscience clause. That is a clause that would deal with the question of a health care worker's conscience. Many doctors, nurses and other health care workers firmly believe that in caring for pregnant women they actually have two patients, a mother and her unborn child. They do not want to participate in a procedure to terminate a pregnancy because it would conflict with their own moral beliefs and moral values.

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
There are many hospitals that recognize and respect those views of health care workers. The ones that do permit health care workers to arrange their assignments to exclude participation in abortion procedures. However, there is no legal obligation at the moment and, to the best of my knowledge, there never has been a legal obligation for a hospital not to discriminate against a health care worker who refuses to assist in an abortion.
That is not the case in other countries. In at least 44 states of the United States and in the United Kingdom there is such a conscience clause. It is written into the legislation to protect health care workers in this sort of a situation. Section 4 of the British Abortion Act of 1967 states:
Subject to subsection (2) of this section, no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorized by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection:
Provided that in any legal proceeding the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest on the person claiming to rely on it.
I fervently hope that if this bill is passed in principle on second reading that there will be opportunity for that sort of amendment to be put, passed and carried because there is real concern out there on the part of health care workers about this issue.
I notice that you are already indicating that my time is drawing nigh. I have two or three other points I would like to make, very briefly. I hope with your indulgence and the indulgence of the House I can do that.
In the first case, I want to say that in the short five years I have been in this House I have seen some spectacular things done in changing bills in committee. I have not been a member of too many legislative committees, but in the ones I have been a member of I have seen some really spectacular things done in the way of changes. One of them, the Shipping Conferences Act, I can remember was changed entirely. The whole concept changed entirely from the day it was introduced into this House until the day it came out of that committee and finally was passed, in an entirely different form than it went in.
I remember being a member of another legislative committee on amendments to the Criminal Code. At that time it was suggested we should add another
amendment which would allow for the introduction of a new offence, war crimes. That was rejected by the Parliamentary committee. Shortly after, almost instantaneously, and before the Parliamentary committee reported, the Deschesne Royal Commission was appointed and out of that came an amendment to the Criminal Code dealing with war crimes. So I do not believe that there are very many things that are not possible to be done in this House and to be done by a committee if there is goodwill on all sides.
I believe that at this stage, notwithstanding my views, it is premature for us to decide whether this bill is good, bad or indifferent. I believe that we should see what happens when it does go to committee. It may very well be that an entirely different bill will come out of committee.
The government has indicated that this may not be the case. But, who knows. I am one who believes there should be changes made. I fervently believe that there should be changes made in this Bill C-43. I fervently hope that we will see those changes made and amendments put at committee.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: the excellent speech made by our leader, the hon. member for Oshawa the other day.
Our party has been clear on its position. That does not always mean it has been an easy position to take, because for many people, this issue goes perhaps to the root of some of the many concerns that they have.
Let us take a look at the legislation that the government has introduced. What is Bill C-43? The bill is an amendment to the Criminal Code that prohibits abortion at all stages of pregnancy unless a doctor decides that the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the woman's physical, psychological or mental health. Doctors can be charged with an indictable offence subject to the penalty of imprisonment for up to two years.
We have been told in this House that the cabinet must support the bill. We have had some ministers say they will hold on and see just exactly what is going to happen with the legislation.
Our party stands proudly on our position, a well thought out one I might add as well, because of the work done by our caucus, the people who work behind the scenes and our critic as well.
What does the bill do that we find offensive in not dealing with the issue? I think that is part of the context of the comments that I would like to make. What does this legislation not do?
First of all, the bill reduces access to abortion by threatening doctors with criminal penalties unless some vaguely defined health criteria are met. It really ignores the whole issue of unwanted pregnancies.
We on this side of the House have suggested that the Canada Health Act was supported by members on the other side, the government side. When that legislation was introduced in the House, you will remember, there was some discussion at that time whether the Conservative members would actually support that legislation.
I spent some time looking at what the Canada Health Act is not doing with this legislation. It is punitive legislation and it does not get at the root of the problem. What is there in the family planning unit within Health and Welfare Canada? One position. Funding to planned parenthood is being cut.
Government Orders
The way to deal with problems like abortion and not have the extremes of debate is to deal with it in a preventive way. How can we do that?
What we do not have in this legislation or other legislation that might be brought before the House are changes that through the Canada Health Act can become the vehicle by which the government can deal with the question of access to abortion. This is a very important question, not just for those members who represent large metropolitan areas like Toronto where if a woman has a need for an abortion, it might be available. But what about the communities across this country that do not have that access? It is easy for someone from Toronto to have that access, but much more difficult for a woman in Prince Edward Island.
Equal access is guaranteed or should be guaranteed to us under the Charter of Rights in our Canadian Constitution. What can the Canada Health Act do? What I would suggest is, as our leader has very clearly pointed out, use the measures in that legislation to ensure that women across the country have equal access to abortion, when necessary.
I come from a province where the premier is wont to shove his ideas down our throats. Yet you must balance that against some very informative and thoughtful speeches, not just in this House, but elsewhere. I am reminded of the speech made by the Governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, who had to debate the merits as a practising Catholic with what that meant to him as a legislator. I recommend that article. It is an important one because it debates the issue that we in this House must deal with now as we debate this legislation.
On health care planning right now, there is a need to have a major federal-provincial review to look at the kind of work that we can do in this country both between the federal government and the provinces to ensure that we can have proper family life programs.
Because I do not think he understands, I think we should get the premier of our province before a committee here so he can learn and try to understand some of the problems and difficulties that many women have across this country. I think there is an obligation on the part of the federal government to ensure that he does understand, and in that case the provincial government of B.C. would bring in the necessary legislation and rules

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
to ensure that we do have equal access across not only our province but across the country.
This legislation, Bill C-43, is a set-back for the women of Canada. The government is suggesting to us that the bill is a compromise, that somehow government members have found a way to weave their way through the courts. I would suggest quite the opposite is going to happen. Perhaps there is some sinister scenario from the Prime Minister's office to introduce this legislation, in the hope that it will fail so then he can say that he attempted to deal with it but, of course, he will attempt to blame Parliament for not being able to pass this legislation.
When we do vote on this legislation at second reading we will see what support there is, if any, from the government members to ensure that this legislation is not passed because the bill is not going to help solve any of the problems we have with health care and with the unwanted pregnancies in Canada.
I want to just wrap up on what I think is a related issue. Our leader has recently been speaking about the incidence of child poverty in this country. I believe it is on the agenda to be debated tomorrow in this House. I think that is part of the package that we must look at and decide what we want to do. We must take a holistic approach to health care. This legislation is not that. We are not getting that from this government and we have many steps to go yet before we can see the kind of open and fair access to health services, including abortion, across this country that we need.
I know that this is not going to be the end of this debate in the House or throughout this country. We will be debating this for some time to come. That is our duty. That is why we have been elected.
I think all of us are taking this discussion and debate very seriously and we will certainly when we are back home in our ridings be explaining our position. That is our obligation. It is my obligation, I believe, given my own position and our party's position, to oppose this legislation.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, through you, I take this opportunity to address Canadians and my northern constituents of the Western Arctic. I speak to this issue after much deliberation,
soul-searching and examination of the implications of Bill C-43.
I have been listening to the tortured reasoning and qualifications of many on why to support or vote against this bill. I am not a doctor or a lawyer. Those are not my orientations and I suppose in a sense that would be reason enough in many minds to disqualify much of what I would render as my position, but I say not.
This is not just a legal issue. It is indeed the most profound moral dilemma with which I have ever had to come to terms. This is not just a legal or a medical issue or strictly a woman's issue. This is a human issue with which we are all struggling.
How do I, as a woman of the eighties and nineties, young, and I guess by some standards, progressive, upwardly mobile and career oriented, approach this issue? I know that my first commitment to society as a person is truth and decency. I cannot be hypocritical to save face or to advance my personal political goals and aspirations. That in my mind would be deceitful. I have indeed struggled to find common ground and I have retreated to a place of truth for myself, who I am and what are the values and principles that guide me that I brought to this complex political process.
I am a woman, a mother of three wonderful people, a Dene from the Dene nation in the Northwest Territories, a member for the Western Arctic and, of course, a Canadian federal parliamentarian. All these roles bear each a certain responsibility, sometimes conflicting.
I would be dishonest to say that I could expound a profound legal sense of this issue but my greatest expertise in all these roles is not just being a woman or just being a Member of Parliament, but for 38 years of my life I have been, I was bom a Dene and I will always be a Dene. I know in my mind and heart and for the sake of common decency what that means. I do not have to read or research that subject. I know what the issue of life means to those people, the Dene, my people. This is not to say that I do not want to represent or try not to represent the best that I can all the other people in my riding.
On this issue, this is a subject that I know well within the context of my own culture and my own people. It has been a profound guide in all of my struggles, joys, failures, successes and hardships. Rather than to speak of things I know not well, I will speak of how my views are certainly a reflection of the utmost importance given
November 23, 1989

to life by my people. I know that that essentially overrides everything else.
My people are not dinosaurs ignoring life's problems. We understand change. We know not only change through a natural process but through imposition many times. We know that there are problems faced by many of our people. We understand disparity. We have understood that for hundreds of years, even thousands. We do not compartmentalize life just as it relates to people. Life is viewed in terms of who you are, what you believe and even how you relate to such issues as the land.
During the Berger inquiry of the early 1970s, Mr. Richard Nerysoo, now the Speaker of the Government of the Northwest Territories, said:
It is very clear to me that it is an important and special thing to be an Indian.
He meant to be a Dene.
Being an Indian means being able to understand and live with this world in a very special way. It means living with the land, with the animals, with the birds and the fish, as though they were your sisters and brothers. It means saying the land is an old friend, an old friend your father knew, your grandfather knew, indeed your people have always known-we see our land as much, much more than the white man sees it. To the Indian people our land really is our life. If our land is destroyed, we too are destroyed. If your people take our land you will be taking our life.
This is one statement of how much value life has even as it is expressed in the way life encompasses the land and what it means to our people and how valuable it is.
Where does the love of life, the joy of life, the sanctity of life, the reverence for life come from? How is it nurtured? There are enough theories, I suppose, but I venture to say as a student of my Dene elders that life is the most valuable gift we the Dene feel we are given.
I as a woman and we as women in my culture are viewed as the nurturers, the protectors, the bearers of a special gift called life and men, our companions, are bestowed the privilege of sharing in this experience. This may sound idyllic. However, it is our world view, it is our code of life.
This is not a newly found Christian ethic we have adopted. It is a world view that we have held to because our struggle for survival has been so severe and so harsh
Government Orders
in many circumstances. We have faced rejection, alienation, colonialization, oppression and possible extermination beyond our control but we survived. Our people have been our greatest resource, our determination to hang on to life our greatest strength.
Listen to some of the views of my elders. They are far more eloquent on their views than I am. A lady by the name of Margaret Sabourin from Fort Providence says:
When I married, my husband and I travelled far together by dogteam. We had two children and it was my greatest sadness when they died and no more children were bom to us.
These people were constantly faced with tragic circumstances. Baptiste Gardan, another elder from the same community, said:
My mother died when I was a baby and still nursing. How I used to cry for my mother's milk but my father couldn't do a thing about that. You couldn't buy milk then so I was given flour boiled in moose milk and marrow to suck on. I was so hungry I would cry all the time.
So much hardship to continue living. Elise Bonne-trouge, another woman, said:
I never knew my father. He died when I was very young, leaving my mother to bring up my younger brother and me by herself. Then my brother died and my mother couldn't work any longer. There was only me to take care of her. As I held her, to change her bed of moss, she died in my arms. Now I was quite alone, without food and unable to fend for myself.
Maybe, just maybe because death was always such a close companion of my people, life was such a welcome friend.
The struggle of women in 1989 is not a new one. You have to listen to the words of women from my culture who are older women, the elderly women. Elise Gargan of Fort Providence said:
Life was especially hard for the women. When the man is away the woman has to feed the children. No matter how cold it was I had to check the snares. Before I left the children, I had to tie a leather thong around the waist of one and tie the end to something stable, put another in the swing cradle, and leave the eldest to watch them all. That's how we used to live. The low points in my life were hunger and sickness. We didn't know how to help each other when there was sickness and there was no doctor. Sometimes we boiled herbs, sometimes just thinking of getting better helps you overcome. When you're out in the bush you sometimes experience real physical pain. It was especially difficult giving birth. Sometimes you don't know what you have to do. You are very thankful if your child is alive.

Government Orders
So few resources, so few options, so much hunger and sickness. How did the temptation to give up escape these people? How did they manage for generations to pass on this value placed on life?
It may be that when your constant companion is despair and uncertainty, the will to live and cherish life is much greater. Another aspect may be the enormous individual and collective losses my people experienced during epidemics and even the experience of harsh circumstances during childbirth. Adeline Constant of Fort Providence says:
After I was married I had fifteen children. I have only five boys and two girls left to me now. The worst time in my life was when I came close to death. I was with child and went out to check my snares. I became ill and my baby was born dead on the trail. All my children were born on the land except one who was bom in the mission.
Now having heard all that, I am sure people are saying, "Come on, wake up, it is 1989 and we all have to move on". Well, my people have moved on. These people have moved on but they have not left their minds, their hearts, their souls and their value for life behind. Their value for life is intact.
I know skeptics and critics will say, "What about the number of abortions being procured by young native women in the north?" I say, "What about all the other social maladies that also exist?" Those statistics are a huge indication of how much work we have to do.
We are not going to be excused from dealing with these problems just by passing legislation. This will not deal with the problems that face men, women and children in dire straits who need our help. We need action from the powers that be to make changes, to put forth the resources and the political will behind programs and policies to aid those that are in need.
Mr. Speaker, I say, through you, to my fellow Canadians: Dear Canada, we have a huge problem, a complex, divisive problem, one that great minds, hearts and souls have struggled over, legal minds have tangled over, and more experienced and talented politicians have debated. Such wisdom and eloquence, and yet no resolution, no consensus.
This human issue of life is more than just that, it is indeed a social dilemma that has virtually stumped the
political process and all that engage in it. It is the debate of our very essence, I believe, maybe even our very existence. We have come closer to accepting our differences but no closer to altering or breaching the values and principles that guide us in our work and our lives.
It is extremely naive to think that we do not bring any bias to the process and that we have come unfettered by our experiences, our education, our close human associations and relationships, our distinct cultural ties. We are all different and the agony of each person is to find a balance that we can live with as being fair.
We are essentially forced into a comer, not just by the current legislation but the issue itself and the demands of the public. I can only say that we have to demonstrate courage to express our position.
My position is one for life. I choose life. I do not belong to the pro-life movement, but I belong to a people who believe that life is sacred and always have under the harshest of circumstances.
I also believe in people who are willing to take the unwanted; I believe in the people who adopt. I am an adopted child. I celebrate my mother and I am the oldest of 15 children. I celebrate my mother because she brought 15 of us into this world, under the harshest of circumstances, with great poverty and difficulty. I celebrate my aunt, my stepbrothers, and my stepsisters because they adopted me. I am a wanted person and I think I have given back to those people what they have invested in me.
I celebrate my people because they are willing to share and they are willing to value a human life and to give it a chance to grow and to nurture it. I celebrate the people who put me here, who have entrusted their votes to me, and I hope that I can, and more than on just this issue, represent them as fairly as I can. But this is indeed a huge dilemma for me and I have struggled with this as many of you have.
We, as parliamentarians and Canadians, have been faced in the past with the consequences of faulty legislation that excludes the rights, ignores the rights and even erodes the rights of groups and individuals, victimizing people who need representation. I cannot support this legislation, such as it is. I cannot take the chance of having this legislation pass. I will vote against it. But I can tell you once more, that for my people, children are
November 23, 1989

important, people are important, and life is the most valuable gift you are given.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my personal concern about abortion, as a member of Parliament, dates back to May 29, 1980, when I raised in this House my concern about Dr. Morgentaler opening up an abortion clinic in Champlain, Montreal, and my disappointment as a politician that the federal government could not do anything to close the clinics. The Minister of Justice at the time said this was a provincial matter and it would be up to the police of Quebec to lay the charges. Well, we know what has happened since 1980.
My question is, will Bill C-43 respecting abortion stop the Morgentalers of this country. If it will not, then I say no to this bill.
Why was I so concerned about the Morgentaler abortions and others? Abortion kills a defenceless human being. The unborn child is a human being and as such is entitled to the full protection of the law of the land for all human beings.
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops made an excellent statement on the sanctity of life in their response to the Law Reform Commission Working Paper on Crimes against the Foetus. They said that all human life must be valued, respected and protected, from conception until natural death. All human life, without exception, is sacred, irreplaceable and inherently worthy of protection and respect.
I would like to quote our own Prime Minister and his position on the sanctity of life. He said in this House:
It is wrong to take life. I can think of no circumstances except self-defence to justify it-we hold for the sanctify of life- But for all else who uphold one simple principle: the inherent dignify of a human being, the inherent worth of human life. I will resist with all my strength, all of my life, any action that would diminish that reality and would lessen value.
If you believe in a principle, that principle should hold whether we are participating in a debate on capital punishment or on abortion. I campaigned as a pro-life candidate in the last election, but I promised my constituents that regardless of my personal beliefs, I would try to reflect their views, their wishes in this Parliament.
Government Orders
I did an extensive poll on the issue of abortion, whether we need a bill at all, and other related issues. I would like to place on the record in this House some of the findings that I received from my constituents of Parkdale-High Park.
To the basic question, do you feel there is a need for an abortion law in Canada, I did not get any clear direction even to that basic question, as 50.6 per cent said yes, 44.2 per cent said no, and 5.2 per cent had no opinion.
To the question, would you feel comfortable with an abortion law that would allow for abortions only under certain circumstances, here also there was no consensus; 50 per cent said yes; 47.4 per cent said no.
To the question, should any of the following circumstances be included in a law: rape or incest; women's health threatened by pregnancy; women's safety threatened by father; within 12 weeks of conception; child raised in dangerous environment; within 22 weeks of conception, the responses here ranged anywhere from 10 to 24 per cent. Again, there was no clear direction.
In response to the question "Do you feel an abortion law should treat abortion as a criminal offence", I did get direction because 60.3 per cent said no to this question. In other words, 60.3 per cent feel that having an abortion should not be a criminal offence. So if I want to reflect the wishes of my constituents on this bill I would have to vote no. Some 36.4 per cent said yes.
To the question "Should the decision for an abortion be made by the woman and a doctor", which is what this bill says, 30.2 per cent responded in favour. Again, if I were to reflect their wishes in this Parliament, I would have to vote no to the bill. Some 47.6 per cent indicated that the decision for an abortion should be made by the woman acting alone. Only 12.5 per cent said that it should be made by the woman and father.
The comments that people gave me also covered the whole of the spectrum on this issue. A constituent wrote:
While I personally believe in rights for the foetus, I don't believe I have the right to inflict my views and beliefs on someone else. If a woman is going to get an abortion she is probably going to get it somehow or other, so why make it difficult or unsafe or illegal? Let each decide what is right for their conscience.

November 23, 1989
Government Orders
On the other end of the spectrum a constituent writes:
A civilized society does not kill one individual to alleviate another's
problems. Canada must have a new law against abortion which will
protect unborn children from conception to birth.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare said in his remarks in this debate:
We have been elected by Canadians to choose the course which best
balances the rights of everyone concerned.
Well, Mr. Minister, the rights of everyone concerned must also include those who cannot speak for themselves. The weakness of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms entrenched in the Canadian Constitution is that it does not include protection for the unborn.
I would like to pay tribute tonight to the late Dr. Stanley Hudecki who voted against the Constitution of Canada because it did not have that protection of the unborn built into it.'
Many members in this debate used the excuse that because we do not live in an ideal world this bill is the best compromise and they will support it. We are the leaders of this great country. We are the guardians of this planet. If it is not an ideal world, then for heaven's sake is it not our role as legislators to bring in legislation to make this world as close as possible to the ideal world instead of destroying it even more? Again, if we are talking about an ideal world or something close to it, let us build in protection for all minorities including the unborn.
Canada should receive an additional 425,000 children each year. It receives only 360,000 because over 65,000 are aborted each year. What a stigma for a country, one that I am not proud of.
Recently the Prime Minister announced the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. What he should have established was a royal commission on why so many young mothers see abortion as the only solution to unwanted pregnancies.
Is it because of the lack of child care services and that women are afraid there will be no one to raise the child while they are out working? Or, is it because they are afraid to be caught in a poverty trap? Maybe it is time in our society for our politicians to think more creatively. For example, why can we not guarantee mothers of first
and second bom children a two-year paid maternity leave?
The Prime Minister should strike a royal commission that would provide recommendations to make adoption more appealing as an alternative to abortion. At present it takes five years to adopt a young child through government sponsored agencies. It takes only three months to adopt through questionable private agencies, and I say questionable because a young couple has to pay an average of $20,000 to adopt a young child. By aborting over 65,000 foetuses each year our society has created a supply management problem on the lives of adoptive children. Bill C-43 will keep the supply of adoptive children down so that the questionable adoption agencies can increase the price per head. That is not my idea of a just society.
To answer the debaters who argue that it is better to abort than have an unwanted child, I say nonsense. Thousands of couples are waiting to become parents through adoption. They will provide the shelter, the love, the security and the education that all children need. I speak as an adoptive parent. I am always reminded that if our daughter's mother would have believed in abortion we would not have Elaine today, a daughter who brings so much love and happiness to the whole family.
I would like to end by asking all hon. members a simple question: How many of us would be here today debating this bill if our mothers believed in abortion?


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address my comments to the legislation before us, Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion. It is not my usual habit to speak from notes, but since this is a very contentious bill and one in which there are subtleties of expression, I have written notes and I wish to refer to them so as not to have my meaning mistaken.
I must say that after only one year in this House I have not found any debate more stimulating than this one on the long awaited subject of abortion. I have found it stimulating because I recognize that more than usual, as each member speaks for him or herself, the truth about who they are as individuals in this place is revealed. It is a very emotional debate reflecting the seriousness of the matter for individual members and their constituents. Elections can be and were won and lost on this issue alone. However, it is also a fact that lives of future
November 23, 1989

Canadians and lives of mothers are nurtured or lost according to the decisions of this House.
From the outset I want to state clearly that I will be voting against this bill. I will express my reasons why, but first I would like to say that in my conscience I feel confident and totally at ease with my decision concerning this bill.
In fact, I will have to say that it was not a decision that I anguished over for I have addressed this issue and debated it for many years. That long period of discussion and reflection, which was entered into with close friends who fell on both sides of the issue, helped me to clarify and consolidate my views on abortion. I am grateful to my friends, whatever their point of view, for they cared enough about me to discuss this highly sensitive and personal issue with me. I count them all among my friends as I appreciate that each of them holds his or her own position sincerely and thoughtfully from a unique life experience as do I.
Among this group of friends, none like abortion, none are anti-life, none regard this to be a trivial issue whether they fall on one side of the issue or the other.
I mention the ease with which I come to my decision on this bill and some of my background because I have noticed considerable anguish and distress among antiabortion colleagues on the government side who hold positions similar to mine but who feel compelled to vote in favour of this most unsatisfactory abortion legislation.
I am pleased that in this House, where each member is supposed to vote according to his or her own best judgment on this bill, I indeed can do so and am not coerced into doing otherwise. I must also say that no amount of party coercion on this issue or lobbying from the extremes of the Campaign Life Coalition or CARAL would convince me to subvert my principles in this matter.
I wish to speak to the substance of this bill, or rather the lack thereof, which causes me to express my opposition.
I believe that currently we are living in this country without any legislation in an environment of non-legal abortion on demand. This bill, if passed, would alter the situation only slightly creating an environment of legal
Government Orders
abortion on demand with the proviso that a medical doctor would be available to perform the abortion procedure and would agree that a woman's physical, mental or psychological health was threatened.
The legislation has advantages for those supporting a pro-choice point of view. The definition of health in this legislation is so vague that I believe prosecution against a specific case would be next to impossible unless there was a gross negligence on the part of the presiding doctor. However, it also encourages women to lie to their doctor in order to easily fit the health definition and thus procure an abortion.
The legislation does not require abortion to be performed in a hospital which would ease the responsibility of provinces of having to provide pro-life taxpayers' dollars to support abortion facilities and procedures. It is not inconceivable that under this legislation abortion clinics would spring up in communities across the country where same day service from health assessment to completed abortion could be performed.
To the disadvantage of the pro-choice advocates it does not entirely leave choice in the hands of a pregnant woman but is dependent upon a medical practitioner's discretion which would be subject to the same variety of moral principles which we hear expressed in this House.
I would like to address more particularly why I will not support this legislation, which has more to do with what is left out than what is in the legislation. First, I believe that human life begins before a foetus is bom alive and that every foetus has rights, especially the basic right to life.
Given the recent Supreme Court decision in the Chantal Daigle case, I believe it is incumbent upon this House now to express foetal rights in our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is beyond my intellectual capacity to discern at what point in time foetal life becomes more important, more sacred. Is it conception, four weeks after conception, four months after, or five minutes before live birth?
I am a fortunate, happy mother of three of my own healthy children. As a nurse I have personally witnessed the miracle of life and the loss of that life at most stages of pregnancy. I have watched the anguish of parents when spontaneous abortion has occurred at many stages. You will not convince an anguished parent who has lost a

Government Orders
foetal infant life through spontaneous abortion that that was not a human being.
Because I believe in and try to live in the spiritual, sacred, mystery side of life, in my intellectual weakness I submit to the view that it is probable that the sacredness of life begins at conception. Therefore, I cannot accept abortion at any stage of life from conception onward.
On the other hand, through my personal medical experiences as a nurse on hospital wards or in public health among the poor, through my years of work among the poorest of the poor in the Third World, through my conversations and dialogue with friends on this issue of abortion, and then my own associations and experiences in my community, I recognize that there are many relevant, serious, socio-economic reasons why women seek abortions. I realize that many women, including young girls and middle aged women, feel that they have no choice for socio-economic reasons but to have an abortion. They have a sense of desperation, isolation and hopelessness in the face of an unplanned pregnancy. This legislation does nothing to change these circumstances.
I believe that any legislation which proposes to criminalize abortion and impose a penalty for illegal abortion must be supported by companion legislation which would address the major socio-economic reasons now have for seeking abortion. However, I also believe that that companion socio-economic legislation on its own would not meet all the needs. Society, communities, those who care about foetal life, must voluntarily reach out to support and sustain women through their pregnancies and be prepared to assist women and their children after birth to achieve the fullness of life.
Communities must work together to help pregnant women and young girls with life supportive counselling, group homes, family planning education, and other support services. These initiatives are beginning to spring up in my riding of Northumberland but to date are far too few to meet the need if this legislation or amended legislation were to be enacted.
To reiterate, abortion legislation is unacceptable without companion legislation which would assure women and children the minimum resources to assure each a full and meaningful life. To date in this country we lack
adequate housing and adequate child care. Our social programs legislate against the independence of single women with children against the working poor. One million children live below the poverty line in this country to the sorrow and despair of thousands of Canadian parents. This abortion legislation does not address any of these problems. Many women seeking abortion are blinded in their decision making by the reality of these circumstances.
Until we have legislation in this country and community services which meet basic needs, you cannot convince me that this abortion legislation is in any way adequate to reduce abortion and protect foetal life. It legislates a penalty against many living in socio-economic distress.
Even if amended to severely restrict the health definition permitting abortion, I would not be satisfied for I believe that once this government has dealt with abortion through this bill, if passed it will have "done abortion", so to speak, and will be deaf to any further legislation which would reduce the incidence of abortion, especially if it were to involve any budgetary expense or priority readjustment. This government is free market driven with debt reductions, not human lives as a priority.
In conclusion, I reiterate that I do not want any abortion in this country. Bill C-43 as it now stands does nothing in my opinion to protect foetal life. Even if amended to restrict the health definition, it will not address the underlying causes of abortion in this country. Any abortion legislation must have companion legislation to support pregnant women and their children. I dedicate myself in this House to do all I can to encourage the enactment of that companion legislation.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here tonight and take part in this debate. Many of the people in this House are lawyers and many are doctors. When speaking to the member for St. Catharines who is a lawyer and the member for Delta who happens to be a medical doctor, I mentioned my sense of inadequacy in addressing this issue. They were quick to point out that some of the best and most emotional speeches in this House, with feelings of real concern, came from those individuals who do not have technical skill in this area.
November 23, 1989

I believe that we are all here for a purpose, and that is to create a better Canada, a better nation. As candidates many of us took positions on abortion to get us to this House, in a sense, so that people knew what we were all about before we were elected. I think that we must honour our own positions on an issue like abortion.
I am often reminded of my own words in this regard. I normally do not quote myself but in this particular case I will. My statement on abortion is as simple as this:
I am opposed to abortion except in cases where the life of the mother is clearly endangered -further I will support all legislation that protects the life of the unborn child.
I will not deviate from that position. I am comfortable with that position.
I think we have to remind Canadians of what exactly is in Bill C-43 which we are debating here this evening. I am going to read part of that bill to remind Canadians of the exact wording of it. It reads in part:
Every person who induces an abortion on a female person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, unless the abortion is induced by or under the direction of a medical practitioner who is of the opinion that, if the abortion were not induced, the health or life of the female person would be likely to be threatened.
I am not entirely comfortable with the words "likely to be threatened", because I think the lack of a clear definition leaves the door open in this particular case. I refer back to my own words in 1988 "except in cases where the life of the mother is clearly endangered". I believe that we are living in a compassionate society which has to look after those who are not fortunate enough to look after themselves.
I would like to quote a very famous American politician who is no longer with us. Hubert Humphrey is an individual who many Canadians came to know, and he had this to say about society and civilization:
The true test of civilization is how society treats those in the dawn of life, the margins of life, the twilight of life.
That is very true. A civilized society can be judged on how it treats it most defenceless members. I believe that the foetus is exactly that, a defenceless member of our society.
Government Orders
I am going to go through a crash course in foetology, the study of the unborn child or foetus. This has become one of the fastest growing and most promising fields in medicine.
New techniques and sophisticated instruments have given us a new view into the previously hidden world of the unborn child. We can watch the child developing, moving, touching and responding. When ill, in some cases the the unborn child has been diagnosed, treated and cured within the womb.
I will point out some of the highlights of progression toward human life from conception. When the sperm and ovum unite in fertilization genetic make-up is complete and a unique individual comes into existence.
At 18 days the heartbeat can be detected. At 30 days foundations of brain, spinal cord, nerves and sense organs are complete. The new human being has eyes, ears, a mouth, kidneys, a liver and blood circulation although the mother may not yet know that she is pregnant. At 43 days brain waves can be detected.
At six weeks nerves and muscles begin working together, the skeleton is fully formed but made of cartilage, lips become sensitive to touch. At seven weeks all internal organs are present, the stomach producers digestive juices, the liver manufactures red blood cells, the kidneys eliminate uric acid from the blood, and legs, ankles and toes are formed. At the end of eight weeks lines of the hands develop and will remain a distinctive feature of the individual throughout life. At eight and a half weeks the child squints and the fingers close into a fist if the palm is touched. At ten weeks the thyroid and adrenalin glands function. At twelve weeks the child kicks, turns his feet and curls and fans his toes, swallows and drinks fluid, inhales and exhales and sucks his thumb. At 16 to 20 weeks hair grows on the head, eyebrows and eyelashes appear, the child sleeps and wakes and he can be aroused from sleep by external noises. As the basic structure of the human being has been in place for some time, all the unborn child now needs is time to grow.
I think we have to allow that foetus to grow and we as parliamentarians have to take the high road. It may, in the minds of some, be a difficult road, but I believe that we as parliamentarians have to recognize that life begins

November 23, 1989
Adjournment Debate
at conception and we have to enshrine that into our Charter of Rights.
In 1987 when the member for Grey-Simcoe brought forward a motion setting out the idea that life did begin at conception it came very close to being supported. The motion was lost by a vote of 62 in favour to 89 against, a difference of only 27 votes.
That motion brought forward on June 7, 1987, is I believe the approach that we have to take if we are in fact concerned about the foetus and the life of a foetus. It has to go right back to the Constitution Act of 1982.
That motion stated:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Constitution Act, 1982, to include unborn human persons, and that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights so that it reads as follows;
"7. Everyone including a human foetus or unborn being has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
I believe that is the direction in which we have to go.
I believe that only when speaking to a child can one really grasp the abortion issue. It brings it down to a very fundamental and very human level when you are speaking to an eight-year old child. My son, Christian, who is eight years old, one night asked me: "Dad, what is abortion?". Never in my life have I had more difficulty explaining anything to anyone than I did that particular evening in attempting to explain to an eight-year-old child what abortion is. You are constantly grasping for the right words, words that are soft enough to explain to an eight-year-old child exactly what abortion is and exactly what the outcome of abortion is.
Abortion is death. It is as simple and fundamental as that. It is a word that we hate to use but that is exactly what it is. I do not believe that as parliamentarians we can compromise human life and I believe that that is exactly what this bill does, it compromises human life.
In conclusion, I would like to go back to my opening statement, the statement on which I stand, that is:
I am opposed to abortion except in cases where the life of the mother is clearly endangered-
-further I will support all legislation that protects the life of the unborn child.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made on Monday, November 20, 1989, a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore the question is that this House do now adjourn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, recently I asked the Minister of Finance about the effect of the proposed goods and services tax on the cost of health care in this country, specifically dealing with physicians' costs. The minister replied that there would be no negative effects on medicare because health care is within the so-called tax exempt category of the goods and services tax.
I rise today to clarify in the House and for the Canadian people what this government promises to do to health care in the name of good management. My remarks are generally applicable to all members of what is commonly called the "MUSH" sector, meaning, municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals, all of which will be in the tax exempt category under the goods and services tax proposal.
MUSH turns out to be a very appropriate acronym for this part of the GST because no one is quite sure what the government is proposing. We know one thing for certain. The Minister of Finance promised to the Canadian Hospital Association last January that under the national sales tax, hospitals would not bear a greater tax burden than they would under the existing tax system.
Unfortunately, given the other broken promises of the minister, revenue neutrality, simplicity, fairness, co-operation with the provinces, all promises he made with regard to the goods and services tax and all broken promises, no one is holding their breath for the fulfillment of this promise either.
Ihx exempt is supposed to mean that no one in this class pays more tax after the goods and services tax is instituted than before. But this is very misleading in the

November 23, 1989

health care sector, although some system will be put into place to reimburse health sector organizations for their additional taxes paid on supplies and services purchased by the organization. There will be no mechanism in place to reimburse higher costs faced by these institutions which are a direct result of the goods and services tax.
Some of these higher costs facing hospitals, for example, will be administrative costs of determining what amount of tax should be reimbursed. Because some hospital purchases will be tax free, such as groceries, prescription drugs and some medical devices, not all non-labour expenses of hospitals can be used in calculating the tax paid. There must be a separate accounting of each item in order to determine whether it qualifies for the federal refund. Consequently, the administrative costs to each hospital will be increased.
Cash flow problems and lost interest will also be an added cost. A study prepared by the Canadian Hospital Association calculates that even at a rate of 8 per cent GST, that is 1 per cent lower than the proposed tax, hospitals will face increased costs of up to $2,000 per bed per annum or $356 million for health care facilities considered as a whole. This means that there will be enormous sums of money remitted to the government with probable delays of anything up to six months or perhaps even longer before refunds come back. Hospitals will be required to pay the carrying costs of such a loan to the government and absorb the interest costs.
In addition, inflationary effects on wage bills will have an impact on hospitals also. The largest expenditure in health care is for wages. The Minister of Finance has projected inflation of close to 3 per cent as a result of the goods and services tax, although many other economists expect it to be at least twice as high as that.
Unionized workers have quite reasonably given notice that they do not intend to allow their incomes to be eroded by this inflationary impact and will bargain for wage packages to make up the difference. This will result in enormous cost increases to hospitals and to other health employers.
We can see that the financial base of tax exempt institutions will be eroded by the goods and services tax. Other sectors of the health care system will also be
Adjournment Debate
adversely affected. Doctors will be facing higher input costs as well in terms of staff wages, rent and insurance costs, for example. In order to maintain their incomes, the Canadian Medical Association has given notice that it will be bargaining for higher fee scales from the provinces in order to compensate for this lost income as a result of the goods and services tax.
Other health care providers who are not insured by provincial plans will also be negatively affected. Such practitioners as psychologists, dietitians, audiologists, family counsellors, speech therapists and physiotherapists who are not insured under their provincial plans will see the cost of their services rise by the full 9 per cent. This sector is completely ignored by the so-called tax exempt provisions.
Every major study of health care in the past 10 years has emphasized the need to use alternative health care providers in the system, such as those I have just mentioned. There has also been an emphasis on the need to provide better out-patient facilities and nursing homes in these studies. However, all private providers of these services will also face 9 per cent increases in their costs, and consequently those who are purchasing those services will be faced with a 9 per cent increase in price.
All of these increases must be absorbed by the consumer. Higher health care costs for hospitals will mean that taxpayers must pay higher provincial taxes to make up the differences or the province's deficits will increase. This is doubly likely, given the huge cuts to Established Programs Financing made by this government and the further cuts to this program covering health and education under Bill C-33, which is presently before the House.
I would like to quote from the Canadian Medical Association statement regarding the goods and services tax and the problems it will create for health care. The treasurer, Dr. Railton, when testifying before the House of Commons Finance Committee stated:
While it is impossible to calculate precisely how much, there is little doubt that the goods and services tax will increase the cost of operating hospitals and nursing homes-especially those operating privately. The GST will also increase the costs of community support programs, like homemaker services, that allow patients to be cared for at home rather than in the more costly health institution.

November 23, 1989
Adjournment Debate
They also pointed out the impact of the cuts under Bill C-33 and by combining those two together felt that the government was creating severe problems for the health care system.
This government is putting Canada's health and education system into a vice. On the one side are the higher costs imposed by the goods and services tax as I have outlined. On the other side is the slashing of revenue from cuts to Established Programs Financing.
The total cuts to EPF over the next nine years for health and education will be $24 billion. That is $24 billion that will be taken out of the system which but for the government's Bill C-33 would have been available to the provinces for health and education.
This is a truly staggering figure, and if we add this to the impact of the goods and services tax we have a serious situation for our hospitals as well as our education institutions and our urban and rural municipalities.
We do not yet know the full impact the goods and services tax will have on costs in hospitals, but given the wide disparity between government projections and reality we can be sure that they are going to be enormous.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I believe contrary to the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing that implementation of the GST will work to ensure the future of Canada's health care system rather than adversely affect it. First, by providing the government with a stable source of revenue, the GST will help to ensure that we can continue to pay for valued programs including many of the services under our health care system.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member might refer to the GST technical paper and read pages 85, 86, 87 and 138, among others, where he would find answers to his questions.
Mr. Speaker, a wide array of health care services have been exempted so that Canadians may find effective alternatives to hospital care which will enable patients to remain at home. Just to name a few, they include mobile canteens, home nursing care, and non-profit homemaking services.
Allow me to say a few words about services offered by health care professionals. Among other things, in its June 1987 White Paper on Tkx Reform the government recommended that health care services be exempted, provided they are covered under provincial health care programs.
Mr. Speaker, in consultations with health care professionals after the release of the white paper, the government was warned against the problems which might come up if indeed health care services covered under health insurance plans were to be exempted. The result might be unequal tax treatment of health care services available in various provinces.
So, Mr. Speaker, in the GST technical paper released last summer-I am showing it to you so you might have a look at it-the government set forth a number of criteria aimed at enlarging the scope of exemptions in the health care field. In accordance with the revised version, services provided by health care professionals will be GST-exempt if such services are covered under the health insurance plans of at least two provinces.
Mr. Speaker, what this means is that such health care professionals as chiropractors, optometrists and dental surgeons- once again, we can see on page 88- the Hon. Member refered to physiotherapists, they too are exempted. I just want to name a few, they will not have to add the GST when they bill their patients.
Mr. Speaker, in summary, I can say without hesitation that our commitment to health care plans is clear. We have established a system of exemptions for health care plans that is as wide as possible and we have also taken measures to offer health institutions like hospitals and extended care homes significant rebates on the GST they will have to pay on their purchases.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by reminding the hon. member that I attended the latest health ministers' conference as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I can tell you that the federal and provincial governments find themselves far short of the resources they require to meet the tremendous needs in the country for health care. It would take what the government pays for the debt plus the present equalization payments to the
November 23, 1989

provinces for health care to deal adequately with all health problems.
In this past decade, we have seen dehospitalization. This was meant to make health care services more humane, except that, with the way life is today, there are fewer families that can provide care and those that do have difficulty because the needs are great and their resources are slim. So I understand very well what the Hon. Member wants to tell us, Mr. Speaker. We also share these concerns, but I can assure you that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has seen to it that the GST legislation will not only guarantee health care but provide more money to invest in this whole area which needs more financial resources all the time.


DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, when I rose in the House on November 1 this year, my question for the Minister of State (Agriculture) concerned dairy producers who were worried about the GATT talks, following the yogurt and ice cream decision which goes against their interests and might jeopardize the existence of our marketing boards.
Tuesday, farmers came to demonstrate on Parliament Hill, to tell the government that Quebec agriculture faces an uncertain future, and I showed my support for the farmers by taking part in their demonstration. Unfortunately, the situation remains confused, and Canadian producers feel more threatened than ever. As we know, the GATT Council examined the report of the special GATT panel on ice cream and yogurt on November 7 and decided to postpone any decisions until December 5.
This is a faint but encouraging signal that shows how complex the decision is and also that the problem is taken very seriously by all concerned. By postponing its decision, GATT has shown it acknowledges the merits of the Canadian Government's position and wants to take enough time to reach the best possible decision. As you know, Canada has now had a supply management program for its dairy sector for over 20 years, and the dairy industry has become a key sector of our economy. It generates farm income totalling over $4 billion, and it is estimated that the total value of dairy products represents $7 billion annually. Supply management in the dairy sector has helped develop a downstream processing industry that complements and supports a primary production sector that relies on a complex system of quotas based on supply and demand, on a pricing formula based
Adjournment Debate
on production cost, enhanced productivity and import restrictions, all of which has promoted income stability on dairy farms and helped many farmers and their families meet the challenges of modem agriculture. Maintaining supply management is no longer the economic option it was when it was introduced. It has now become a political and social option.
As stated by the three federal ministers responsible for this area in a circular addressed to Canada's milk producers, and I quote: "Canada's supply management system is not for sale and is not negotiable. We will not abandon a system that is acknowledged and respected by all our foreign trading partners, because it is an essential component of our long-term agricultural policy". That says it all, but unfortunately for all parties involved in the dairy sector: governments, producers and processors, the situation that has developed as a result of the Free Trade Agreement, the recent GATT negotiations, and the subsidy war between the European Economic Community and the United States has emphasized the need for a thorough reform of our agricultural programs. However, what first appeared to be a welcome improvement for the world's agricultural economy has now apparently created a controversy among the various trading partners.
If our dairy supply management system is to operate properly, we must closely monitor imports of dairy products, otherwise we are no longer talking about supply management. GATT Article 11, and this is entirely legitimate, authorizes countries that manage the supply of certain agricultural products to restrict entry of similar products that would otherwise prevent the proper functioning of the supply management system.
During the FTA negotiations, Canada added ice cream and yogurt to the list of controlled imports. This decision was intended to provide more protection for the dairy sector, as authorized by GAIT. We should add that the government was also responding to the expectations of Canadian dairy producers who had exerted enormous pressure to have these two products protected as well. However, the U.S. reaction was soon in coming. In December 1988, they filed a
It should be noted that the Americans are not singling Canada out. They previously used the same remedy against other countries, including Japan. But the basic question is rather simple-why? Why, in this era of free trade, are there so many jolts, so much uncertainty? How is it possible that simple farm products like yogurt and

Adjournment Debate
ice cream lead to a situation that becomes a Gordian knot?
The GATT panel that examined Canadian restrictions to ice cream and yogurt imports favoured the Americans, but it also recognized that the requirements of Article 11 of the GATT, as interpreted by the panel, are difficult to adhere to. Article 11 leaves too much to the interpretation as to what a like product is, as to the need to restrict quantities, and as to the form a like product may take.
The Canadian Government is sticking to its position of maintaining a recognized goal, which is the establishment of a set of rules that are clear, fair, workable and acceptable by all parties, namely producers and Canada's trading partners.
For the time being, nothing comes out of this except this government's renewed faith in marketing boards. And also that, for the first time in Canadian history, a Prime Minister and his two ministers responsible for Agriculture, as well as his Minister of International Trade met with the president of Union des producteurs agricoles and its executive and some producers. This is a signal indeed that this government is going in the right direction and wants indeed to protect the industry.
International Trade spokesmen will have to become aware of Quebec realities during the GATT negotiations, and I demand that we have French-speaking negotiators from Quebec at the table.
Our joint schemes, our marketing boards and our quotas must be 100 per cent protected. Quebec farm producers will not tolerate that a blind eye be turned on Quebec demands.
This is why I am asking the Minister whether he can reassure Quebec producers in terms of the current GATT negotiations. Can he tell us whether all parties in the various farm industries in Quebec will be adequately represented by knowledgeable people at those negotiations?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member for Drummond that this government will continue to vigorously defend the interests of the Canadian dairy producers in the GATT negotiations.
We firmly maintain our right to develop programs that best respond to Canadian conditions, and this includes our right to set up supply management systems. Our position has been, and continues to be, that Article 11 of the GATT must be clarified and strengthened. The GATT panel ruling on Canadian import controls for ice cream and yogurt clearly confirms that. We want to see fair and equitable trading rules that apply to everybody in the international marketplace.
We are not taking this ruling lightly and we are seriously concerned. What this ruling means is that under current rules, U.S. ice cream and yogurt exporters will have greater access to our marketplace. At the same time, the American market will continue to be closed to Canadian producers of the same product. That is because the U.S. has a waiver from GATT that effectively prohibits U.S. imports from Canadian ice cream.
That is not at all this government's idea of fairness. As I have said, this ruling confirms our MTN position that Article 11 has to be strengthened and clarified. I want to assure the hon. member that we have raised this concern in Geneva. This is the route that the Canadian Dairy Industry itself has endorsed.
At the October GATT Council meeting, this government clearly stated its concerns regarding the implications of the panel ruling for the dairy industry. We pointed out the very narrow interpretation of GATT Article 11 used by the panel. Specifically, we have trouble with the terminology of "direct competitive products". We reiterated our concerns about the impact of this decision on the Canadian dairy sector at the November GATT Council meeting.
The Canadian dairy industry has been well represented in this process. In fact, this government is working hand in hand with the dairy industry to explore our options.
Just recently, a number of our dairy farmers travelled to Europe to discuss with their European counterparts the implications of this ruling on the Canadian industry. It is our view that the panel report is calling into question the original intentions of the GATT drafters. We certain-
November 23, 1989

ly do not believe it intends to exclude the entire dairy sector from Article 11 coverage.
We firmly believe that our supply management programs conform with international regulations as we understood them. We have played by the rules and we expect our trading partners to do the same.


AUDITOR GENERALS REPORT
Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to further elaborate on a question that I asked of the President of the Treasury Board on October 26,1989.
The subject of my two questions that day dealt with the government's refusal of a request for access to information by the Auditor General. Specifically, in this particular case, with releasing logs for the use of VIP aircraft by ministers of the Crown.
Now, as everybody knows, on October 24 of this year, the Auditor General released his report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989. In chapter 6 of that report, the Auditor General indicated that he had been denied access to certain files regarding ministerial expense claims and also regarding the government's use of VIP aircraft.
Now, on first blush, the documents that were requested by the Auditor General concerning the use of VEP aircraft seemed to be something that a government should have given as a matter of course. What he wanted to know was what was the stated intention of the trips that the ministers had taken on government VIP aircraft. He wanted to know that for the simple reason that he was trying to do his job. He was trying to find out whether or not the charges that had been sent to the minister or the department from National Defence were the proper charges. That is because there are three different classifications of flights.
The previous day, I believe it was, in response to a question from another member, the minister indicated that he had put the issue over to the comptroller general who would conduct an investigation and, yes, the information that was requested would be made available to Parliament, to members and to the public.
As reported at page 5051 of Hansard on October 24, the President of the Treasury Board said:
Adjournment Debate
-we will provide on a regular basis the total travel expenses of each minister, the number of times he takes an aircraft, where he is going, who he is going with, his itinerary, the reason for the use of the aircraft and the cost of the government aircraft.
The day before, the minister seemed to respond that the information which the Auditor General requested would be made available. That simply is not the case. I have been in touch with the Auditor General and I have carefully read the responses from the President of the Treasury Board to previous questions. The minister responsible for the Treasury Board basically said that all information from that date forward would be made available. The Auditor General had requested specific information from the period of April 1,1989 onward, not October 24, 1989 onward. The question that I had asked was would the minister responsible for the Treasury Board-yes or no-specifically give the information that had been requested by the Auditor General. The minister's answers did nothing to allay the concerns or the questions that were posed by myself and some of my other colleagues. Consequently, on November 9, Mr. Paul Tellier, Clerk of the Privy Council, commented at a committee meeting in response to a question from one of the members of the Public Accounts Committee. I wish to quote from an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail for November 10, 1989:
When Mr. Tellier was asked yesterday whether Mr. Dye would be allowed to audit ministerial travel, he told the committee: "That audit is not going to take place."
You can see why I am a little confused, you can see why I am concerned, you can see why I am looking for additional information, Mr. Speaker.
We have also been told by the President of the Treasury Board that that information could not be made available dealing with receipts and other matters requested by the Auditor General to do his audit because he said, and I quote from page 5086 of Hansard for October 25:
I think that Opposition Members can well understand that in such cases, it is important to maintain confidentiality. It is government business.
I think that is an absolutely incredible statement for a minister of the Crown to make. The Auditor General is an officer of this place. In the conduct of his duties when he audits various government departments and agencies the information that he is given is confidential. Surely to goodness this government is not questioning the trustworthiness of the Auditor General, a man whose job and that of his department is to ensure that the public interest is being upheld by members of Parliament, by

November 23, 1989
Adjournment Debate
government departments and government agencies. It was an incredible statement to make.
Every time an audit is done by the Auditor General, I would suspect that he would have access to confidential information. So the answers that have been given in this place are simply unacceptable and do not in any way address the request of the Auditor General, a request that I repeated, hopefully on behalf of the Auditor General and other parliamentarians in the House on November 26.
Is the government prepared to release to the Auditor General the documents that he has requested so that he can do an audit, not to find out whether or not the trip was worthwhile, but he wanted to find out whether or not the charges that were coming from the Department of National Defence for cost recovery purposes were correct?
The government has stated that it is quite prepared to give that information from October 25 onward. From a discussion I have had with one of the members of the Auditor General's staff, I found out that six months prior the government gave almost identical information when an information audit was done to find out what material was available so they could structure their audit.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary who is here tonight if he can shed some light on the questions that I
have raised, subsequent to the questions that were asked in this place. He may wish to comment for a moment or two and because of the nature of the questions that I have asked, he may wish to provide me and the House with a formal reply.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I first want to apologize to the hon. member for Dartmouth. We have had an earlier discussion. He has had a number of questions on the Order Paper for the late show and we have had a slight mix-up in our responses. What he has asked for is some very detailed information of a question that he had asked earlier this year and that other people have asked. I think in all fairness and to give him the proper answer we will provide him with a written reply to the questions he has raised tonight. I believe that that would be the most fair way to look after his concerns. I give him my word that we will reply with a written response very shortly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 24,1989