1989-11-22

Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the farmers from Ontario and Quebec who were here on Parliament Hill yesterday to try to make this government understand that its policy direction is unacceptable for Canadian agriculture and will end in the destruction of this once vibrant industry.
Those thousands of fanners who conducted this demonstration with purpose and dignity and their forceful presentation should make this government realize that the free trade agreement has already proven to be a disaster to Canadian farmers and Canadian food processors.
We have had a countervail placed against our pork entering the United States from Canada. We have a threat of countervail against our Durum wheat entering the United States. We have a GATT decision against our dairy farmers allowing ice cream and yoghurt into Canada, while the United States restricts imports of our ice cream into their country. Just last week the St. Lawrence Starch Company announced that it was closing its plant in Ontario and moving to Buffalo, New York.
This government has been systematically dismantling the most sophisticated marketing system of any country in the world and Canadian farmers are being thrown to the vultures of the market-place.
I call on this government today to stop this madness, to restore agriculture to the position that it deserves in society, to restore the Advance Payments for Crops programs, to provide its share of crop insurance premiums to make it truly tripartite, to restore At and East transportation policy, and to restore the Farm Credit
Corporation as a credible lending agency rather than a collection agency.
I call on this government to make agriculture a national security issue and give the Canadian farmers who demonstrated here yesterday a secure living that is commensurate with that of the rest of society.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, in my riding office, I regularly receive people in search of employment, as do my colleagues in this House I suppose.
In recent years, I have noticed a lack of coordination between employers and potential employees.
Mr. Speaker, more and more employers lack skilled workers and must make do with fewer employees than they need. At the same time, prospective employees only have such general training with no specific skills that they conclude few jobs are available.
Some say that there are no jobs, but I wonder! Take a look in the Canada Employment Centres where jobs are posted. There are jobs, and I am convinced that a very small effort in terms of training would create openings for them that they do not even suspect exist.
Once job seekers understand that employers' needs go beyond the status quo, we will train a society that can meet our expectations.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Agriculture told the 5,000 farmers who were in front of the Parliament Buildings that his government was not undermining farm support and that the supply management program is preserved in the free trade agreement with the United States. In fact, the free trade agreement states that both the United States and Canadian governments should

November 22, 1989
S. ft 31
work for the elimination and the reduction of import barriers.
The United States views supply management as a restriction of imports and Canada is showing complicity with the American point of view. The British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association has stated that the agricultural industry in that province will cease to exist if these marketing boards are removed. The $30 million Okanagan Valley commercial soft fruit industry will virtually disappear as tariffs are removed over the next 10 years. The elimination of supply management will serve to deliver the death blow. Supply management and tariffs ensure a secure market for domestic products. The combination of free trade and this government is proving lethal to farmers, especially the fruit growers in British Columbia.



Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday our farmers came to Ottawa, to make the government realize that agriculture in Quebec and in the Beauce region faces an uncertain future.
Our spokespersons for international trade should realize that we will not tolerate any indifference on their part to Quebec demands as they relate to the GATT talks.
Mr. Speaker, agriculture in Quebec has become very organized. I want 100 per cent protection for our joint ventures, our marketing boards and our quotas. Many sacrifices have been made to set up our family farm operations, with the co-operation of governments and the UPA.
As the Member for Beauce, Mr. Speaker, I demand that francophone negotiators from Quebec, who are familiar with our needs and requirements, be included on the Canadian negotiating team in Geneva.


Mr. St-Julien:: Hear, hear!


Gilles Bernier: We must strengthen GATT Article 11. We will keep our eyes open, believe me!


EL SALVADOR
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we hear today that the armed conflict between the military in El Salvador and the opposition forces continues to escalate. The Liberal party believes that Canada can no longer take a passive stand in light of these dramatic developments. We would like to ensure that the Canadian government immediately addresses the following recommendations.
First, that the Canadian government through its new role in the OAS urge the United States to reconsider its policy on El Salvador and in that context suspend its aid to the Salvadoran military and condition its economic aid to political negotiations, human rights and compliance with the Esquipulas II peace accord.
Second, encourage the OAS, specifically its human rights arm, to investigate the human rights abuses in El Salvador and report as soon as possible, as well as call on El Salvador's government to cease and desist immediately from human rights violations.
Third, that Canada adopt an open-door policy for refugees escaping the conflict in El Salvador during this time of crisis and hardship and put a moratorium on the deportation of any El Salvadoran refugees now living in Canada.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, the recently released discussion paper entitled "Growing Together: A Vision for Canada's Agri-food Industry" has provided an unprecedented opportunity for us to review our many past achievements as well as to forecast our future direction in the agri-food industry.
The organization Dairy Farmers of Canada is to be congratulated for the initiative it has taken to study and make recommendations on the future of the dairy industry in Canada. In the past, we as Canadians have been able to look inward to decide what is best for Canada. Now as we enter the 1990s there can be no mistake about the fact that we are intertwined in a rapidly emerging global economy. Our involvement in
November 22, 1989

this global economy will have tremendous long-term benefits for Canada.
The four fundamental components directing the review process will ensure that our competitiveness in international markets will be continually strengthened throughout the 1990s. However, the most important feature of the review process is that it is participatory. Producer representatives and producers themselves are encouraged to get involved in this initiative which gets under way with a national agri-food policy conference on December 11 and 12 in Ottawa.


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


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, an unacceptable case of toxic contamination exists in the community of Rankin Inlet in my constituency in the Northwest Territories. The contamination has been found in the tailings pond of an abandoned nickel mine. The results of a consultant's report show that the level of contamination for arsenic, copper, nickel and sulphur exceeds the severe contamination level.
The report suggests that for the past 20 to 30 years the tailings area has probably been generating an acidified leachate which has drained into the marine waters of Rankin Inlet. It points to possible problems arising from heavy metal accumulation in sediments and the food chain.
The consultants say that more detailed investigations to assess the nature and extent of the contamination and the associated health risks to the community are needed as soon as possible.
I call upon the Government of Canada to exercise its environmental responsibilities and act upon its expressed concern for the Canadian Arctic environment. Get involved, clean up the contamination now.


TRIBUTE TO VICTOR DAVIS
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, on November 13, this year, Canadians heard the sad news of the tragic death of one of our most famous athletes.
A gold and silver medal winner at the 1984 Olympic Games and three times winner of the world record for the 200 metre breast stroke, Victor Davis was throughout his career and his all too short life a shining example of courage and determination and a proud symbol for Canadian youth.
Even after his death, Mr. Speaker, Victor Davis continued to set an example by donating his vital organs, his heart, eyes, lungs, liver and kidneys, so that other persons may live.
His fighting spirit and his love and respect for his fellow men were qualities that endeared him to all Canadians and won him their respect, admiration and love.
I wish to extend our condolences and express our feelings of sympathy and profound sadness to all members of his family.
Victor Davis' example will be with us forever.


EL SALVADOR
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, President George Bush has defended U.S. military aid to the government in El Salvador by stating that "Cristiani is doing a job for democracy". "Doing a job for democracy" means the brutal murder of Jesuit priests, the detention of foreign nationals and terrorizing of the civilian population. Increased militarization will not lead to democratization as the United States maintains.
Bush argues that the elections in El Salvador this spring were "certifiably free and fair". Is the U.S. now issuing certificates to justify military intervention? I was in El Salvador at the time of the elections with the Mission for Peace. Our report made clear that elections

Tributes
are only one instrument of a democratic system. If other instruments are absent or weak, elections have questionable validity.
To declare the process in El Salvador fair and free is to severely distort reality. By not formally denouncing the position of the United States, this government is allowing the myth of democracy in El Salvador to be continued. Until the Bush administration accepts that democracy means the participation of all members of society without fear, there will be no peace and no democracy in El Salvador.


DRUG AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government realizes it is necessary to make youth aware of the dangers of drug abuse and has therefore announced that the week from November 19 to November 25 will be national drug addiction awareness week.
Canada's decision to set up a national anti-drug strategy, initiated in 1987 with a budget of $210 million, is praiseworthy, but drug awareness and prevention programs will not stop the supply of drugs and the dependency it generates.
Today more than ever before, we must be concerned about the insidious effects of drugs.
Increased drug use is a new threat to national security. Life loses its value, the crime rate soars and young people's lives are ruined for good.
Every year, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of drug trafficking profits cross the border between Canada and the United States.
The fight against drugs cannot be won by governments alone. Mr. Speaker, we should take advantage of this week to maximize our efforts to fight drug abuse.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday thousands of farmers from Ontario, Quebec and other parts of Canada gathered on the lawn in front of the Centre Block to protest this government's
lack of direction in farm policy. They voiced their concerns in many ways. Their anxiety was apparent.
The fate of their farms and the agri-food industry is in serious jeopardy as they see their industry being systematically dismantled, a system they have struggled for decades to put in place to ensure the production of quality food products in Canada. They feel that the government has done nothing but trade away their industry. They feel strongly that organized marketing as they have known it is coming to an end in Canada.
I join with the thousands who made the trip to Ottawa, representing farmers across the country, in voicing my continuous concern for the future of the farming industry in this country.



Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, the farmers of Abitibi demonstrated on Parliament Hill yesterday. The signals they have been getting from Ottawa recently gave them reasons to be seriously concerned about their future. Nevertheless, the president of the UPA, Jacques Proulx, reached out to the Minister of State for Agriculture and said, "Let's work together."


Mr. Robichaud:: He will be disappointed again!


Guy St-Julien: The demands of our Quebec farmers relate to three areas, namely freer trade in agricultural goods because of GATT and the Free Trade Agreement, advance payments for crops and the reform of agricultural policies.
Mr. Speaker, the government must act on this because farming is essential to Canada and to Quebec.


DEATH OF PRESIDENT OF LEBANON
Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to mourn the death of Lebanese President Rene Mouawad today in Beirut. Mr. Mouawad was elected only a few weeks ago, but already, thanks to his reputation as a man of dialogue, his country was able to move significantly towards peace and national reconciliation, in a land tom by more than 14 years of pitting brother against brother. Canadians welcomed his arrival among the world's heads of state because it
November 22, 1989

marked an important step on the road to the unity, sovereignty and reconstruction of Lebanon.
The attack which took President Mouawad's life is totally unjustifiable and those responsible have dealt Lebanon a heavy blow. The Canadian Government condemns this act and hopes that all parties with influence in Lebanon will show restraint and continue to work towards a political settlement of the Lebanese conflict. Mr. Speaker, violence cannot solve this conflict.
President Mouawad sacrificed himself to make the Lebanese nation what it was before, a beacon of civilization and community understanding. I wish to express our condolences to President Mouawad's family and to all the people of Lebanon.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the Lebanese community around the world was horrified and shocked at the assassination of President Mouawad early today, an assassination which was undoubtedly a vicious attempt to thwart the Arab League Peace Plan that recently became the only hope of reconciliation to the people of Lebanon and to others around the world.
President Mouawad was elected on November 5 of this year by Lebanese legislators at a special session called for in the peace plan as an attempt to bring to an end 14 years of violence and bloodshed.
I want to call on the Arab League to not be discouraged by this brutal act, to not let this act deter them in their efforts toward a final resolution of this long and tragic conflict, and to elect another president quickly to avoid any further deterioration that would almost undoubtedly result in absolute anarchy.
I want to call on General Aoun to endorse the peace plan by offering full support to the process and decisions agreed upon by the Lebanese legislators and the Arab League.
I want to call on the Government of Canada, this time to use our seat on the Security Council, bring the matter up for action and show the people of Lebanon that we will not stand by any more while innocent people are being murdered, and that we will be willing to work with them, to work with the Arab League, to put an end, once
Oral Questions
and for all, to this senseless killing that is tearing the heart out of the Middle East.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I would like to join with everyone here in the House of Commons in condemning this act of violence, the assassination of the President of Lebanon.
We extend our sympathies not only to the family of the president but to the entire people of Lebanon who have suffered these last 14 years an endless cycle of violence which can only be perpetuated by the kind of violence which we saw enacted there today in the bombing that killed the president.
I am reminded that today is the anniversary of another assassination, the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22,1963. We see that whatever hopes that we had at that time that assassination might disappear from the face of the earth have been shattered time and time again and are shattered here today, shattered in a country where assassination and violence have become a way of life.
I join in the appeal that the Arab League and others who are sincere about peace in Lebanon not be discouraged by this event, that the life and the courage of the President of Lebanon, who no doubt knew that this was a dangerous job when he took it on, not be offered up in vain, and that some day soon everyone who has influence and power in that region of the world will come to their senses and make it possible for peace to come to the people of Lebanon.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
On June 6 this year, the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police wrote to the House of Commons justice committee confirming that on November 8, 1988, that is to say in the middle of the last general election, indeed two or three weeks before the election

November 22, 1989
Oral Questions
date, the RCMP had received a document from the Prime Minister's principal secretary, then Peter White, using the commissioner's words, a document "relating to the investigation which led to criminal charges, including those against Mr. Richard Grise."
The commissioner wrote the justice committee that he had received legal advice, I assume from the Department of Justice, not to release the document from the Prime Minister's principal secretary. In light of the extraordinary revelations with respect to the Grise affair, will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that the part of the document given to the RCMP by the Prime Minister's principal secretary, Peter White, which relates to the convicted Conservative member of Parliament, Richard Grise, will be made public immediately?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, this matter, which was discussed yesterday and is still being discussed today, was already dealt with by the Commissioner. The Commissioner is now outside the country at an Interpol meeting. When this question was put to the RCMP Commissioner, the answer was, if I recall correctly, that at the time there were legal grounds for not disclosing the letter. 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. I believe that the government acted entirely appropriately, in the circumstances. As soon as it was informed of the facts, the information was handed over-


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Pierre Blais: If the hon. member will let me proceed I listened to the question and if I could have a chance to answer the question-
The government immediately handed over the information it had to the RCMP, so that the RCMP could conduct its investigation. The results of the investigation are now public knowledge. I think that if people have further questions for the RCMP Commissioner, they can put those questions when he comes back. However, it is my feeling that everything was done in an entirely
appropriate manner and that there are no grounds for further questions on this matter, Mr. Speaker.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are very anxious to have the commissioner appear again before the committee, but this is a matter I feel concerns the Prime Minister's Office and the principal secretary at the time.

The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did not deal with this issue yesterday, but he did tell the justice committee that the officer in Montreal who delayed the search warrants had acted on his own. That particular officer later told reporters that one week before last year's general election he had advised the Acting Deputy Commissioner of criminal investigation here in Ottawa of the decision to delay search warrants and that the Acting Deputy Commissioner told the officer "He had no problem."
This officer who delayed the search warrants told a Montreal newspaper yesterday: "proceeding with those searches less than one week before a general election- perhaps could have influenced the election on a local and national level."
I want to put this question to the Deputy Prime Minister because he understands, I am sure, the profound questions involved in this affair which go to the root of our system of justice. The public interest demands prompt and impartial investigations and the administration of justice whether or not there is an election on. Nobody is to be convenienced by when a search warrant will be laid or when a charge will be laid.
Six days before the decision to delay the search warrants was made, the RCMP received a document from the Prime Minister's principal secretary. I put the question to the Deputy Prime Minister, what was in that document?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman keeps trying to incriminate the RCMP and undermine the integrity of the RCMP. I consider this to be a very serious matter. The members opposite do not.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind hon. members that a question has been put to the Deputy Prime Minister who has the floor and is trying to answer.
November 22, 1989


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is the RCMP Commissioner, Mr. Inkster, was very frank and forthright with the committee yesterday and undertook to look into this matter in its fullest detail. The Solicitor General has responded in a similar manner. What is happening here is that we are providing the answers that are being made available to us. The RCMP are providing the answers that are being made available. Because the opposition does not like the truth and it does not fit their political motives, I cannot help that. We want to ensure-


Some Hon. Members:: What was in the letter?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, Mr. Speaker, that will be something for the RCMP to decide because as he said yesterday, he would take grave exception to any individual who would make an effort to tell him what to investigate, who to investigate, or how that investigation should be undertaken, and I agree with that statement.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this issue at this stage does not relate to the integrity of the force. We support that. It relates to the integrity of the Prime Minister's Office and the heart of this government, and that is why we want to know what was in that document and whether the Deputy Prime Minister will produce it.
We do not need the return of the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for this answer. We will await his return before the committee. We want to know why an intervention was made eight days before the election by the Prime Minister's principal secretary relating to the Grise affair and why the Deputy Prime Minister will not produce that document.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can ask the RCMP if they will produce the document. If he wants to interfere with the investigation then he can be my guest.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP have said that they will not produce that letter. They have told us, and I want the Deputy Prime Minister to get this, that they will not give us the letter. We are asking the government for that letter because of the circumstances in which that letter was sent. Will the Deputy Prime Minister make that letter public?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not satisfied with the truth.


John Napier Turner: You are not giving us the truth.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yesterday there was a firm undertaking by the Commissioner of the RCMP to get to the bottom of this and report back as quickly as he possibly can.
I also noted that the hon. member has great confidence in the Commissioner of the RCMP. If he has so much confidence, why does he not let him complete the review and the investigation and report in an appropriate fashion?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Commissioner of the RCMP will not make public a letter that he got from the Prime Minister's Office. That is for the Prime Minister to decide to do and we are asking the Deputy Prime Minister to make that letter public. The investigation is over. A conviction was obtained. What is the public interest in withholding from us and from the Canadian people the contents of that very important letter?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the public interest is in defending the independence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is the issue.
The investigation that was undertaken was undertaken by the RCMP. It was conducted in the manner in which the RCMP saw fit, its conclusions were made in an appropriate fashion, and what we are doing here again is imputing motives.
The hon. member is making suggestions of political interference and political wrong-doing. The RCMP Commissioner has been very clear and categorical on that account. He may not believe us but surely he should believe the RCMP Commissioner.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. May I just say that it is very clear from the facts in this case that the Commissioner of the RCMP has been kept in the dark in this whole matter.
My office learned yesterday from Chief Superintendent McConnell that he normally reports to none other

November 22, 1989
Oral Questions
than Deputy Commissioner of Operations, Henry Jensen, and that Mr. Couteau who received the call from McConnell yesterday was simply sitting in for Jensen who was away.
Now Mr. Jensen sat in the justice committee beside Mr. Inkster in June when he misled the committee. In the case of Inkster this may well have been unintentional, but it is not unintentional on the part of this government.


An Hon. Member:: Get on with the question.


John F. Brewin: In view of the fact that the Solicitor General has had 10 months in office to get to the bottom of this affair, how can he say that he has not either been negligent in his duties to the people of Canada or, because he is afraid of what he might find out if he looked into this affair, he is simply intentionally acting contrary to the interest of the people of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Now that was a charge, and I have said before that we are not using preambles by way of charges. The minister may wish to respond.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. We know that eight days before a decision was made to delay the issuance of search warrants in the Grise matter Peter White wrote a letter to the RCMP. We know that Bernard Roy apparently told an engineer who had given bribes to Michel Gravel that this would be a little in-house investigation and that Gravel would quietly resign. There was not supposed to be any charges or any big scandal. We all know that is not what happened.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House precisely what role was played by Bernard Roy in the Michel Gravel investigation? What role was played by Peter White from the Prime Minister's Office in the investigation of Richard Grise? Will the Deputy Prime Minister stop trying to cover up political interference in the administration of justice in this country and-


Mr. Speaker:: The question was doing quite well until the last moment or two. The minister may want to respond.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Mr. Bernard Roy, I noted in The Toronto Star today, November 22, that allegations which were made in regard to any information he had with respect to the probe into the dealings of Michel Gravel were "odious and false". It is my understanding that he has written to the letter publisher or the editor of the Montreal Gazette to that effect.
In so far as the other matter is concerned, the only information I can give to the hon. member at this particular time is that as soon as information was made available to the Prime Minister's Office with respect to this, it was turned over to the RCMP.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday RCMP Superintendent McConnell stated, after admitting to delaying search warrants in the Grise affair for political reasons, that he would do exactly the same thing again. I want to ask the Solicitor General who is responsible for the RCMP: Does he accept this very dangerous decision by the RCMP, or will he now finally show leadership and assure the House that this kind of political manipulation of the criminal justice process is totally unacceptable-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Andre:: Why is he allowed to continually do this?


An Hon. Member:: You are questioning the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that under the circumstances I will have to proceed to the hon. member for Saint-Leo-nard.
*
*


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank. Yesterday, in answer to my question, he said and I quote:
Headquarters believed a pub-disco was operating in a building owned by the company to which the loan was made.
The Federal Business Development Bank's loan policy excludes this kind of business. Therefore it is not a mistake but it is contrary to the policy. Will the minister clarify this matter? Will he tell this House who received

Oral Questions
the loan application at the branch office, and who reviewed and authorized this loan exceeding $1 million at headquarters? Are we going to find out the truth once and for all?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, five times, the application was sent to headquarters for approval because of the nature of the business, being a night club-pub-disco. The vice-president at headquarters approved it, not knowing it was a strip club. He ought not to have done that. It is contrary to public policy. That is the sixth time I have given that answer to this House.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, today we learned from The Toronto Star that Ken Cavanaugh, the spokesman for the federal bank, said that the loan in question was supported by a chartered bank.
Now if it was supported by the chartered bank, why did the bank not make the loan? Why did the FBDB make the loan, which is a last resort lending institution? Is that another mistake?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, his leader is a former director of a chartered bank. He should ask him why the chartered bank would recommend that kind of a loan.
How am I supposed to know?


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the minister responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank and is on the same subject.
The minister told us yesterday and again today that the branch office and the headquarters of the Federal Business Development Bank both made an error in approving a loan to the Lido strip joint. Today, Mr. Ken Kavanagh, spokesman for the bank, said in an interview with CBC that the bank had no intention of "divesting" itself of this client. If the loan is contrary to the policy, as the minister told us yesterday and again today, if it is unacceptable to finance this kind of business, is is not also unacceptable to keep this client? Why is the government continuing to finance a business which it considers unacceptable?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, a contract was entered into between the FBDB and the numbered company that owns the land and property and the business contained therein. That contract obligates the FBDB, as well as the holder of the loan. There are no provisions in that contract.
There will be in terms of the policy from now on, as I indicated yesterday in the House, but there is no provision in that contract to call the loan in the manner the hon. member is suggesting.


Don Boudria: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the minister told us there was a mortgage and today he tells us it is a loan. That is a fascinating way he has of getting himself confused.
I want to ask the minister a very serious question. Can he give this House his assurance here and now that the Federal Business Development Bank has not financed any other such establishments, that the Federal Business Development Bank has not financed strip joints directly or indirectly in the past other than the Lido strip club in Hull?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, to spare the hon. member hours of work sniffing down a blind alley here, let me tell him that it is a loan secured by a mortgage on the land and property as well as certain assets within the business.


Mr. Jelinek:: He would not understand that.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, five times and today at least once, a mistake was made. The policy has been changed.
The policy now reads: "The bank does not provide financing to businesses which would result in FBDB being identified as encouraging activities which, while legal, generally could be considered offensive".


Don Boudria: Are there any more?


Harvie Andre: The hon. member again shouts from his seat showing he is more interested in feigned indignation for the benefit of television rather than information from this side of the House.

Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


Mr. Yic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday thousands of farmers demonstrated in Ottawa searching for answers from the Minister of Agriculture-


Some Hon. Members:: How many?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Thousands-regarding the future of national farm marketing boards. They got no answers.
Specifically what role does the minister and this government see for national marketing boards? What role will they play in the export of farm products in the 1990s? Will he be expanding the existing legislation to permit the establishment of new national boards by removing the current restrictions on fruit and vegetable producers, grains and oilseeds producers, and livestock producers which now prevent them from establishing such boards?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government and the position that we have taken as a party for many, many years is that we will honour the type of marketing system that producers want. If the majority of producers want a marketing board system, that is something we will facilitate for them. The fact of the matter is that-


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: Did you check the free trade agreement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, a Liberal is saying from her seat that that is not what the free trade agreement says. The free trade agreement veiy clearly establishes the right for marketing boards to exist under the provisions of GATT.
What this government is doing during the GATT negotiations is an attempt to clarify and strengthen Article 11, the foundation under which supply management systems can exist and under which import controls can be implemented.
As a result of the ice cream and yoghurt decision, which was not a free trade decision but rather a GATT decision, it is necessary to clarify that provision because the wording goes back to 1947 and there have been a lot of changes since that time.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister might focus on answering the question. All sides of the House applauded when east bloc countries, specifically East Germany, began tearing down the wall that kept people in. Now East Germans have a choice.
Will the minister and his government tear down the blockage that exists in the natural products marketing law which restricts the producers of grains and oilseeds, livestock, fruits and vegetables from even considering establishing such marketing boards? They have to get the legislation changed first. They have to get permission to go through the wall. Will he tear it down?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been living in Ottawa too long and not getting back to his constituency often enough.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If he was paying any attention to what was going on in rural Canada, he would know that beef producers in Ontario rejected a marketing board and supply management concept.
We believe in democracy. If they had voted in favour of one, we probably would have taken action to facilitate that course, but democratic forces prevailed. They did not want that kind of a system, and we will uphold the decision of the farmers.


MONEY LAUNDERING
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
After a convention of North American chiefs of police held recently in Kentucky in the United States it would seem that billions of dollars of drug trafficking profits cross the American border every year and are laundered in Canadian financial institutions.
Considering that the laws of our two countries are not compatible and that our banks can break up a large deposit into several smaller deposits to various bank accounts and then transfer them to U.S. accounts, with a view to correcting this situation, does the minister intend to take appropriate and concrete steps to authorize our police forces to obtain information from our banking institutions so as to uncover these fraudulent operations
November 22, 1989

and enable our society to make progress in the fight against drugs?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the government looks upon money laundering as a serious issue. I should like to reassure the Hon. member for Drummond by telling him that we have been and will be using the latest and most effective measures to fight against this plague.
For example, some people have suggested registering any transaction in excess of $10,000. My response is that drug traffickers may be criminals, but they are not necessarily stupid. It is very easy to find other ways to complete the transaction. We looked at that suggestion on three occasions and, for the time being, our conclusion is that the methods we use with the banks, the RCMP and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions are up to date and effective. We will continue to use the latest technology.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Agriculture).
Yesterday, while some 15,000 angry farmers were protesting-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: The minister had the gall to brag in the House about his dairy policy. Is the minister not aware that his policy became worthless when his government signed a free-trade agreement with the United States, and especially decided to progressively remove the tariff on yogurt and ice cream, before securing from the United States the assurance that they would allow Canada to add these two items to its import control list? Does the minister not realize that the people who were outside booing him and insisting they no longer trusted him are seeking a better treatment from him? What is he going to do?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I realized that I was fortunate to hold two portfolios when RCMP officers advised me that there were 4,500 farm producers demonstrating yesterday in front of Parliament.
Oral Questions
In this connection, my Hon. friend ought to know that the decision dealing with yogurt and ice cream-
I am aware that NDP members could not care less about Quebec farm producers, but I suggest that there are people both in and out of the House who care about them.
In reply to his question, may I suggest to my Hon. friend that he should know this is a GATT decision which has nothing to do with our free trade agreement with the United States. It was at the request of farm producers that we had added yogurt and ice cream to that list. The tribunal ruled against us; yet, we have done something which Liberal Governments had not done in over 20 years, to wit, sit down with Quebec farm producers in an effort to put together a new dairy policy and strategy with respect to GATT talks. You did not even have a long-term dairy policy. For five years, farm producers waited for some action on your part.
Since my colleague is absent from the House, may I suggest, as I did yesterday, that we have no lesson to receive from hon. members opposite. We have always looked after dairy producers and we will continue to do so.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of State (Agriculture), who is fully aware that he simply extended for a five-year period a dairy policy that has been of benefit to Quebec farmers for years and years as it was renewed by the Liberal administration. The industrial milk policy has done so well in Quebec because it was well designed years ago.
When in 1976 there were demonstrations on Parliament Hill, the government of the day listened and made corrections.
Here is my question to the minister: Faced with that demonstration, by whatever the number of farmers, because all farmers in UPA and the whole UPA membership in the province of Quebec, support those who came to Parliament Hill and are demanding that the Minister take concrete steps to protect, not only yogurt and ice cream, but also butter, cheese, powdered milk.
What will the minister do to ensure that Canada's industrial milk producers are not put out of business by the Americans, as they are now preparing to do?

Oral Questions


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that after five years the hon. member for Papineau would ask a question dealing with agriculture. For five years, Mr. Speaker, this government has been looking after farmers. In 1986 we brought in the first long-term dairy policy ever a policy they could not get from you.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, which is of significant importance for dairy farmers, they sit with us on a strategy committee. We are reviewing the current dairy policy with a view to strengthening it and ensuring-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Pierre Blais: If you will listen-and ensuring that we are able not only to address what we have gone through over the last three years, but also to meet the challenges of the future.
We believe that under a strengthened and clarified Article 11 marketing boards will be in a position to compete during the 1990s and into the next century, Mr. Speaker. This is what farmers need.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who has thrown in the towel in determining fishery policy in Atlantic Canada, leaving two big fish companies to call the shots on which fish plants to close and leaving thousands of plant workers and fishermen economically stranded.
Does the minister not agree that catch quotas rightfully belong to the individual ports and fish plants, and not to the companies?
If the companies tty to close particular plants in Atlantic Canada, will he ensure that the appropriate quota shares remain with the individual fish plants? Does he not agree that sharing the work is better than shutting down individual plants altogether, permanently?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that I certainly have not agreed to throw in the towel, although if he needs one, feeling rather wet, I could provide him with one.


Mr. McKnight:: Actually it is a crying towel.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, there are certain matters with respect to the distribution of fish quotas that come ultimately under the authority of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
As we plan for the quota management of the 1990 fishery we will be setting those quotas in a fair and equitable fashion, following a process of consultation involving all industry sector groups, affected provincial governments and ministers of fisheries.
There are other matters as to which plants should receive which portion of supply under quotas accorded to private companies which have been properly the domain of those private companies. In the course of the work of the special cabinet committee on the northern cod issue in particular and the Atlantic fishery more generally, that matter is being considered very carefully.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows as much about towels as he does about the fishery.
Does he not agree that the fish belong to the communities and the people, not to those multinational fish companies?
Yesterday there were some meetings in Halifax on this subject. I am sure the minister has heard reports are circulating from that meeting yesterday that both inshore and offshore quotas are going to be drastically reduced. That should come as no surprise to him.
Will the minister now bite the bullet and set some direction on how the quotas are to be distributed between the offshore and the inshore? Will he undertake to see that the two sectors of the industry are not being played off one against the other, leaving the industry in even deeper chaos?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, first the member was concerned that I would throw in the towel. Now he wants me to bite the bullet. I think he really needs a shot in the arm.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: The hon. member knows full well that for several years there has been a process of consultation in which we discuss these questions with the affected sectors of the Atlantic fishing industry and provincial governments.
November 22, 1989

Upon completion of that process of consultation we will publish the 1990 Atlantic Groundfish Management Plan on or around December 30 or 31 of this year, and all the answers to his questions will be revealed at that time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The minister will know that the Prime Minister said yesterday in Moscow that the 1987 White Paper on Defence was outdated. Of course the Prime Minister was the last person in Canada to realize this, but we are glad he has come to this conclusion.
I am wondering if the Minister of National Defence could tell us what process the government now has in mind for reconstructing Canadian defence policy along the lines of the new realities that the Prime Minister has observed, and whether in the context of that process he is prepared to say now that the government will suspend its commitment to low-level flight testing over Innu territory in Labrador until such time as the government can arrive at a new defence policy?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the member asks a very important question. The White Paper was drafted in 1985 to 1987. It was released in 1987 and it was the reality of the time. I think the hon. member admits that, as do others.
Several things have happened since that White Paper was drafted. There was a budget and, to provide the economy of Canada with the strength that we think it needs, there was a reduction in the allocation for the Department of National Defence. A review was undertaken at that time and it is still ongoing.
There are realities today and there are opportunities today that were not available four weeks ago and were not available some six months ago. Therefore, naturally we look at the changes as we progress and the White Paper will continue to be reviewed.
I suggest to the hon. member that it would be prudent to take the time and to allow this government to take the time to come to the right answers as there is a changing reality in the world today.
Oral Questions


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think the minister should acknowledge that even in 1987 there was disagreement about the White Paper. It is true, of course, that other things have happened in the meantime.
I asked the minister about a process for reviewing the White Paper, and I asked him in that context to suspend the government's commitment to low-level flight testing, to put a moratorium on it until such time as it can be re-evaluated. The minister has not answered that question.
In the same context, would he also consider suspending Canada's commitment to cruise missile testing which also belongs to a very outdated view of the world?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the member represents a party which believes we should not seek collective security in the NATO alliance. This government believes we should and that we should continue to seek security in the NATO alliance.
The member has to understand, and I am sure he does. The changes that have been taking place in Europe today, yesterday and the day before were changes that were encouraged by NATO over the whole period of its existence. NATO has never been an aggressive force. NATO has been a defensive force. It will continue to be. So are the activities and the training that Canada takes part in today.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise that in view of the intervention of the hon. minister and the replies by the opposition parties, we will end Question Period at 3.05.


INVESTMENT CANADA
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. In February the minister and Investment Canada approved the takeover of Texaco by Imperial Oil even though the Investment Canada Act says that the question of competition must be resolved first, and that was not done until June. Even though the question of competition was resolved in June, the competition tribunal said that the decision on competition was flawed on November 10.

November 22, 1989
Oral Questions
If the competition question was not resolved until November 10, how could Investment Canada give its approval and say that the competition question was resolved in February, thereby violating its own enabling legislation?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the mandate of Investment Canada was to examine mergers and acquisitions to see if they are in the national interest. In matters relating to the oil and gas industry, it is the oil and gas policy that imposes certain restraints and applies particularly to upstream assets, namely the oil and gas in-ground reserves.
Those policy requirements were met in terms of this agreement. There were certain dispersals imposed on Imperial Oil. It had to dispose of certain assets and so on in order to meet the requirements of the energy policy.
The Competition Act has its own authority and there is no sequential arrangement. They both must be approved before any acquisition is finally approved. As you know, the competition questions are currently being examined very closely and certain amendments being caused, and that will carry itself to its conclusion. Either it will be permitted or not permitted, but that has nothing to do with Investment Canada's responsibility and mandate.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, yes it does, because the Investment Canada Act says that the question of competition must be resolved before Investment Canada can give its approval to the takeover, and it did not do that. In fact, the competition question was not resolved until four months after Investment Canada gave its approval.
From here on, will Investment Canada wait until the competition question is resolved before giving its approval on investments such as this, particularly takeovers and mergers, or is this going to be a regular procedure, that of the enabling legislation of Investment Canada being breached for the convenience of the government?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is not for the convenience of the government, it is for the convenience of commerce in the country. I do not see any advantage to anybody to follow the procedure the hon. member is suggesting. There are two conditions that must be met; the net benefit to Canada test of Investment Canada and
the Competition Act test. Each must be met separately or a deal does not go through. The procedure the hon. member seems to be suggesting offers no benefits to anybody.


CHILD CARE
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. He will know that the United Nations General Assembly has approved a comprehensive convention with regard to the rights of the child. Canadian governments, both present and past, have been strong advocates of this. Today 10 per cent of Canadian children are in need of some form of child care, however, they are not being accommodated. In Ontario 11 per cent of the province's children in need are being served by the child care program in this country.
Why is the government of Canada not finding this subject matter to be sufficiently important to introduce a comprehensive program, thereby creating the many new spaces which are needed for child care in this country? Is it or is it not a priority?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that this was the first government in Canada that did try to introduce a comprehensive child care plan for children in Canada and that it was stopped by the other place with his party being instrumental in that stoppage.
Let me say as well that this government has committed itself to bringing in another comprehensive child care plan before the next election, within the next two or three years, and that in the meantime the Canada Assistance Plan is available for the provinces to use. It is an open-ended plan to which this government is committed.


David Charles Dingwall: The minister knows that they have had almost six years to come forward with a national program for child care and they have failed with that particular priority.
There are fewer than 70 child care centres serving more than 1,000 native communities across Canada, some of which are now facing closure because of lack of
November 22, 1989

funds. At the present time the Government of Canada spends less than $5 million for First Nation child care.
Would the minister explain why the government has gutted $60 million from native child care? Why is the Government of Canada denying native people, whose needs must be obvious to everyone in this House, of high quality and culturally sensitive child care?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this government is well aware of the particular needs of native children and of native women. We have done more to show that than has any previous government. Let me go back to some other things too.
In terms of child care, this government introduced tax measures that will provide financial assistance to parents. We launched the Child Care Initiative Fund which includes the very kinds of things the hon. member is talking about. The Child Care Initiative Fund was set up specifically to deal with doubly disadvantaged children and women who need particular help, such as native inamen. That is in action now and it is moving forward. This government also recognizes that we need to have a national child care program and we will do that as soon as possible.


QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on a question of privilege. My background is Italian, and my office received an anonymous telephone call asking whether that made me a mafioso. Enquiries were made, and it seems that Tele-Direct, the company responsible for printing the yellow pages across Canada, has committed a grave injustice vis-a-vis the Italian-Canadian community. College Platon, established in 1957, is a language school and teaches 25 different languages. The college is located in Montreal and is known not only to Canadians but also to foreign students. For the year 1990-91, the college placed an ad in the yellow pages on page 453, listing 23 courses offered to students. It says: "English, French, Portuguese, Dutch", and so forth, but instead of Italian, it says: "mafia".
Point of Order
Needless to say, the entire Italian-Canadian community, of which I am a member, was shocked by this racial slur. When Italians first immigrated to Canada, Mr. Speaker, they were called a number of unpleasant names like "mafioso". We worked as labourers for abysmally low wages, to gain recognition and be accepted as solid citizens. For 20 years we have been part of the Canadian and Quebec community.
Just look at the newspapers! Italians are no more likely than the English, French or dyed-in-the-wool Quebecers to commit crimes, rape, or be involved in shady dealings or drugs. We are Canadians, not mafiosi. On behalf of the Italian-Canadian community I represent, I ask Tele-Direct to take action against the person or persons with this warped attitude and withdraw this racist page from the directories or make the appropriate corrections.
Mr. Speaker, the Italian community doesn't deserve to be treated like this in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened with some interest to the hon. member's statement. This is a veiy serious matter. It may be appropriate for the Chair to consider the matter and make a statement later on in the House. I want to thank the hon. member.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, although I have not seen the document, I agree with the hon. member that in 1989, such insults are unacceptable, and speaking on behalf of the Italian community and with the hon. member, I hope that with the support of this House, steps will be taken to prevent any recurrences.


POINT OF ORDER
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point of order arising from the proceedings during Question Period yesterday, November 21. This is the first opportunity I have had to raise the point.
It has to do with a question put by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who said, as reported at pages 5931 and 5932 of Hansard:

November 22, 1989
Point of Order
Given that less than four hours later Radio-Canada confirmed that the Federal Business Development Bank had made two loans to the Lido strip joint in Hull owned and operated by a friend of a former cabinet minister and totalling $1.3 million -
Mr. Speaker, I have heard you many times in this House, indeed I heard you today and yesterday, admonish members about using preambles and comments that amount to charges or impugned motives and so on. No doubt you are reflecting the admonitions in Beau-chesne's sixth edition, section 409(7) which says:
A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it.
In this particular case the reference is to a former cabinet minister, with the inference that somehow perhaps he influenced this loan which I admitted was an error.
Outside the House the hon. member mentioned that it was Roch LaSalle he was talking about. That, of course, had the press going and they were pursuing me to see if I was going to follow this up with a full investigation into what was to them imputed wrong-doing. Other reporters checked that out and Mr. LaSalle denied categorically knowing the owners of the Lido strip joint or ever having been in the establishment. My office confirmed that. He absolutely denies that.
Mr. Speaker, in keeping with your admonitions my request is veiy simple. I am not accusing the hon. member of deliberately inferring wrong-doing on the part of Mr. LaSalle. He may have received information which was in error.
In any event, I think it would be in keeping with the kind of atmosphere we would like to promote in this House if the hon. member would withdraw that comment and recognize that Mr. LaSalle is not a friend of the owner of this strip joint and has not been a frequenter of this strip joint. He should recognize that any reflection such as that is unfair to this person who is no longer a member of this House, and particularly unfair to that person's family.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I invite you to read carefully what Hansard says and what the minister himself has stated:
-four hours later Radio-Canada confirmed that the Federal Business Development Bank had made two loans to the Lido strip joint in Hull owned and operated by a friend of a former cabinet minister-
I was stating what Radio-Canada had said. If the minister across has some difficulty with what reporters of Radio-Canada say, he can phone Mr. Normand Lester at Radio-Canada and ask him publicly to recant.
As you will know, Mr. Speaker, neither members of the opposition nor anyone else in this House are in a position to dictate to Radio-Canada what to say. I would imagine that Mr. Normand Lester has a mind of his own, he can say what he likes, and if that is not satisfactory to either Mr. LaSalle or to someone else they can take it up with Mr. Lester or with Stevie Cameron or all the others who have made such statements. But for me to read what has been said on television last night can hardly be considered a slander or anything of the like, and I say to the minister across the way that just because he does not like something does not make it slanderous.


Mr. Speaker:: I will consider the interventions that have been made and report back to the House.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. If I am not mistaken, the hon. minister who raised the point of order was in the House yesterday at the time that the words he complains of were spoken by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. He heard the words and he therefore was in the position to raise the point of order, if one existed, promptly after yesterday's Question Period.
I just point out he did not do so at the first opportunity. I simply add that point to what I think are the extremely valid words of the member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell, and I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that words like those used by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell citing basically a press report have been used many times in this House by members on the government side when they were in opposition and in replying to questions and no complaint has been made. I think there is no validity, as a result, to what was said by the hon. minister in his point of order.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, at the time the accusation was made by way of statement, I had no way of knowing if it was true or not true. Of course, no names were given at that time. It was outside the House that the name Roch LaSalle was mentioned so I did not have the opportunity to verify. I then sought out independent verification. My office talked to Roch LaSalle and he is again deploring the fact that even though he has left this place, his family continues to be abused in this fashion. It is for that reason and that reason alone that I just say,
November 22, 1989

Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
would it not be nice if for once we could say, "We are sorry we dragged your name through this muddy situation, it should not have been dragged through".
I did not suggest the hon. member invented this fact. He says he got it from Radio-Canada, that is fine. However, is it not about time that perhaps just out of decency, out of respect for the man's family, we acknowledge a mistake was made and withdraw the remark. That is all I was asking for, Herb, that is all I wanted.
['Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-23, an Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof, with amendments.']
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to comment that my hon. friend, the House Leader for the Official Opposition, just made the point that the minister was in the House yesterday and could have complained at that time but did not rise at the appropriate time. I appreciate the point my hon. friend has made. We are taking due note of that and will follow that precedent in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is in a position to hope. The hon. member for York Centre.



Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from Question Period. My leader and I asked questions about a certain letter sent by Peter White of the Prime Minister's Office to the Commissioner of the RCMP containing information on which charges were eventually laid. The Solicitor General did not answer the question and said, in his reasons for not answering it, that yesterday at the justice committee the commissioner had been asked and had answered all the questions about the letter.
I was at the justice committee meeting yesterday and I have a transcript of the meeting. My recollection is confirmed that there was no discussion at all about that letter at the justice committee meeting yesterday. I submit that the Solicitor General has misled the House and he should retract that answer that he gave.


Mr. Speaker:: I will consider what the Solicitor General said and I will also look at the proceedings in committee and report back to the House.


ORDER IN COUNCIL
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments 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
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to 128 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-23, an Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof, with amendments.



VICTIMS OF CRIME COMPENSATION ACT


John F. Brewin: for leave to introduce Bill C-278, an act respecting compensation for Canadian victims of crime travelling or posted abroad.

November 22, 1989
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, this bill is designed to fill a gap in compensation for criminal injuries. All provinces and territories in Canada have legislation under which victims of criminal acts have an opportunity to apply for compensation from the province. Unfortunately, if a Canadian is travelling or working abroad and is injured there is no possibility of claiming compensation. The event must occur within the provincial or territorial jurisdiction.
This bill is designed to provide, at the federal level, that Canadians who are travelling or working abroad and are injured may apply to their provincial or territorial compensation tribunals and would assume that the federal government would pick up the compensation thus applied for.
I urge the House, at the appropriate time, to adopt the legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 wherein petitioners from western Canada point out that one-sixth of all Canadian children live in poverty and that the percentage of children living in poverty is growing in Canada. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to support Private Member's Motion M-254 which calls upon the government to negotiate with the provinces of Canada to provide a comprehensive bill of rights for children.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have another petition. The petitioners, again from western Canada, point out their concerns regarding the government's decision to curtail passenger rail service and are asking the Parliament of Canada to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail services in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid,
economic, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, a last petition, again on behalf of a number of petitioners, largely from Kamloops, British Columbia, who point out a whole variety of concerns they have regarding the government's initiative concerning the goods and services tax. The petitioners are opposed to the goods and services tax and request the government go back to the drawing board and draft a comprehensive tax reform package that is fair to Canadians.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to table a petition submitted by a number of petitioners who wish to exercise their ancient right to express a common opinion and who seek to submit a grievance with respect to the rural post office.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 170 of the people in my riding who are calling upon Parliament to enjoin the Government of Canada, to request- indeed I think they should demand-that the Government of Canada extend its jurisdiction to the very edge of Canada's continental shelf as is consistent with international law and as every other coastal state in the world has done, so that Canada can protect and regulate the fish stocks vital to Atlantic fishermen. This is the subject, as you know, Madam Speaker, of a crisis in our most important industry at the present time.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition signed by 510 people calling upon the House to request that the Government of Canada establish an unemployment insurance pay centre at Happy Valley, Goose Bay, to service all of Labrador. This would mean that those people who qualify for unemployment insurance, which is about 50 per cent of the people at the present time, can avail themselves of their legitimate rights.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 420
November 22, 1989

Routine Proceedings
people in the riding requesting Parliament to demand that the Government of Canada reject the proposed goods and services tax which is going to have a negative effect all across the country but which will have enormous consequences for the north. If you consider that the goods and services tax will add 100 per cent disability to southern Canada, it will be 150 per cent to northern Canada.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition from residents in my riding calling upon the House to request that the Government of Canada revise the laws of Canada and the Canada Evidence Act to better serve victims with disabilities, allowing them to communicate their account of their victimization in court.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I have been asked by several thousand people in the province of New Brunswick from the Grand Falls area, Plaster Rock, Quispamis, Moncton, Fredericton and Saint John, totalling 11,720 petitioners who have asked me to present a petition on their behalf indicating that they sincerely and strongly believe that faith in our future can only be guaranteed by our witness to respect for life from the unborn to the aged.
They believe that human life is a gift given by God and that life is unique and special, and they believe in the sanctity of that life from the moment of conception. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to formulate and legislate a law to protect life from conception, a law which seeks to save the life of both mother and child.
It is quite evident from the size of this petition that there are a significant number of people in this country who are concerned. We must consider that the over 11,000 people who signed this petition represent a province that has a population of about 700,000 people. Indeed, at this critical moment in the history of this Parliament, they ask for deep consideration.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House eight petitions signed by residents of York West all opposed to the new tax, this GST being proposed by the Conservative government, not only because of its impact on small businesses, but also on average citizens. This proposal, the thirteeth new tax presented by the government since 1984, would cause a lot of hardship. We, the Liberals, ask the government to reject completely and totally this new GST.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am very pleased to present 1,000 petitions that have been certified. I have more thousands of petitions that are not certified. I appreciate I can only recognize those petitioners but they are bowlers, psychologists, consumers and business people. Everybody in Sault Ste. Marie is against this tax. I present these petitions with the hope that the government have an eleventh hour change of heart and scrap the goods and services tax.


Mr. Dan Heap (IVinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition from a number of residents of Ros-them, Saskatchewan. These petitioners are concerned that we should support Canada's original peoples in traditional use of their lands. Therefore, they ask this House to join with the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit of Labrador and other aboriginal peoples of northern Canada, to demand the end of all NATO-NORAD low level flight training and to refuse the establishment of NATO operations in Canada. They demand that we redirect Canada's NATO-NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and their livelihood and to promote sustainable development for all Canadians.

Routine Proceedings VIA RAIL


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I have another petition from a number of residents of Ontario, from London, St. Mary's, Lambeth, Ottawa, Oakville and Hornepayne. These petitioners point out that VIA Rail provides Canadians with an affordable and environmentally friendly means of intercity transportation on which many Canadians depend. They, therefore, humbly pray and call upon Canada's Parliament to reject any proposed reduction or elimination of VIA Rail, to modernize existing equipment and to build a high-speed passenger train between Montreal and Windsor.


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition to the House for the following reasons. It is clearly evident by the widespread interest shown that Canadians are growing increasingly impatient by the lethargic approach we are taking to the extradition of those accused of heinous crimes against humanity.
The current extradition laws in this country allow alleged or convicted criminals to escape justice for sometimes brutal crimes committed outside of Canada. An example is Charles Ng who is wanted in the United States for 13 savage murders in the State of California.
I have the honour to present today petitions supporting the extradition of these individuals seeking haven in Canada. The petitions I am tabling today have 1,381 signatures, although I have received over 2,000 signatures to date. Unfortunately, many did not meet the rigid format required by the House.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: I continue to be amazed, Madam Speaker, and somewhat overwhelmed by the ongoing number of petitions that we are getting, all in opposition to the 9 per cent GST. They come from all parts of Canada from people in all walks of life and from all segments of our society.
These particular ones come from my community in Brockville. Like some of the previous petitions presented they do not all meet the criteria, but the spirit is there with them.
Having said that, the names of petitioners on this sheet do meet the criteria in accordance with Standing Order 36.
It is a pleasure to present this petition, which has been attested to as to its propriety in form and content.


Ralph Ferguson: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present petitions from Burnaby, B.C. and from Sarnia, Ontario. They contain a total of almost 900 names. These petitioners are asking this government to reconsider its position on the goods and services tax. These petitions have been certified by the table officers of the House of Commons.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]


Jack Iyerak Anawak: I have the honour, Madam Speaker, to present pursuant to Standing Order 36 a petition signed by people from my birth town of Repulse Bay. They object to the proposed goods and services tax. As well, I have a petition which is signed by residents of the community of Pelly Bay in my riding of Nunatsiaq where exists the highest cost-of-living in all of Canada because they can only get their produce and other goods by airplane, and certainly not by trucks or other forms of transportation.
These petitioners from Pelly Bay object to the proposed goods and services tax because if it goes through the cost of living that they are enduring now is going to get even higher and they will not be able to afford it.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and duty on behalf of a number of petitioners from Cavan, Mill Brook and Frazerville to present a petition which calls upon Parliament to exercise its constitutional powers of disallowance with respect to Bill 178 of the province of Quebec.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member from Victoria-Haliburton rose I was waiting for him with open ears to hear that his petition did not deal with that particular subject but instead with an approval perhaps of the goods and services tax, or an approval of the cuts to VIA Rail. No, his constituents would not do that sort of thing.

I have in my hand petitions from the Northumberland and Belleville areas containing hundreds of names, dealing first of all with the need to protect our rail transportation system in Canada and condemning this government's action in cutting VIA Rail.
I have hundreds of signatures on these other petitions dealing with the goods and services tax.
I look forward to the day when members from the opposite side of this House will rise and present the same type of petitions dealing with their constituents who want VIA Rail cut, and who want that 9 per cent goods and services tax imposed.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to present to this House 13 petitions signed by 3,211 people from Saint-Leonard and the greater Montreal area. These Canadian citizens ask Parliament to reject any new tax on goods and services. This new tax would lead to inflation, higher interest rates and lost jobs. It is a nightmare for small businesses to have to deal with this tax.
So I have 3,211 signatures and many more still to come, Madam Speaker. I hope that the government will go back on its decision.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present a petition on behalf of the Canadian Vietnamese community who are calling upon Parliament to request the Government of Canada to consider the following actions. First, putting pressure on the Hanoi government to end its abuse of human rights in Vietnam. Second, negotiating with the countries of first asylum to maintain the existing refugee camps in southeast Asia and not to send the refugees back to Vietnam against their will. Third, requesting the governments of Thailand and Hong Kong to open up their closed refugee camps to give the refugees kept there access to settlement services.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce -Grey):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions pursuant to Stand-
Routine Proceedings
ing Order 36 on behalf of Ontario citizens concerned about the rights of the unborn. These petitions contain the names of 1,352 individuals who join with the many other petitioners whose petitions I have presented during the past week, calling for Parliament to pass legislation that will protect the life of the unborn from conception instead of the proposed law that would legalize the killing of innocent human beings.
I have no hesitation, Madam Speaker, in highly endorsing these petitions whose origins are from many communities in Ontario, namely, Chatham, Dryden, Wallaceburg, North Bay, New Liskeard, Sault Ste. Marie, Woodstock, St. Catharines and Nipigon.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I too have the honour pursuant to Standing Order 36 to table a petition on behalf of the constituents of Parkdale-High Park who are objecting to this government's 9 per cent tax on goods and services. The reasons they give for their opposition is that this government has already increased taxes 31 times. It has increased the manufacturers' sales tax from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent. They also argue that this tax will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle-income Canadians. As a result of those arguments, the petitioners are calling upon this House to force this government to cancel the goods and services tax.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to present several petitions to the House pursuant to Standing Order 36. There are 9,631 signatures here, over 5,000 from Saskatchewan, over 4,000 from Alberta, and most of the rest from British Columbia. These Canadians believe that the RCMP dress uniform is a symbol of Canadian tradition and culture and are asking Parliament that it remain unchanged.


Deborah C. Grey: The second petition I am presenting pursuant to Standing Order 36 is from about 50 senior citizens in my riding. These seniors are adamantly opposed to the budget proposals to tax back Old Age Security and family allowance payments.

November 22, 1989
Routine Proceedings
Of course, I am always pleased to present petitions to the House on behalf of the residents of Beaver River.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the House of Commons today a petition signed by a number of people from Scarborough, Agincourt and Toronto. They are calling upon the Government of Canada to work with the province of Ontario on a very important issue.
This issue is to save the Rouge Valley. It is 5,000 acres in the northeast part of Metro Toronto. The wildlife and wilderness aspects of this valley are of national significance. The interim report of the royal commission on the future of the Toronto waterfront recommended that the Rouge Valley be protected as a natural heritage area.
I would just like to mention in relation to this petition that the Legislature at Queen's Park this week approved unanimously the Progressive Conservative motion to have the Rouge Valley as a park. We now need action, as the petitioners are asking, to have the Government of Ontario establish the Rouge River Valley as Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition signed by people from my province. They strongly oppose the proposed goods and services tax. They feel it will cause serious and undue hardship to low and middle-income Canadians. Also, they say not only will it mean higher taxes but higher interest rates, higher inflation and higher unemployment. Therefore they call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today pursuant to Standing Order 36. They have been certified as correct as to form and content. The first one contains many hundreds of signatures and is in regard to the goods and services tax. The petitioners point out that the government is now trying to tax reading, hair-cuts, diapers, coffins and home heating fuels.
They are asking the government to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on
wealthy individuals and corporations, and where there is a broad public consensus on the sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax and that this reform not be an opportunity to impose a massive tax grab.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, the second petition is also from my constituents and contains roughly about 75 signatures. It is concerning the VIA Rail transportation system.
The petitioners point out that this government, like its Liberal predecessor, has refused to provide VIA with the necessary support to fully realize its potential to develop the kind of national passenger rail network that Canadians want and deserve. Coming from a region where there is going to be an elimination of a whole line, they ask that this government please abandon the plans to cut VIA Rail service.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, like Canadians in Malpeque and across the country, the residents of Kingston and The islands object to the continual string of tax increases imposed by this government. After 31 such increases they decided to take matters into their hands and sign a petition.
A bunch of them have done so, and as their Member of Parliament I am honoured to present this petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 in which these residents of my riding call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax as number 32 in a string of unpopular, unnecessary, unfair and unwanted tax increases.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52 I ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration of the House, namely, the unsatisfactory response by the government to the pressing and specific needs of Canadian farmers in financial, trade, marketing and other areas which is creating a dangerous level of frustration as seen in yesterday's mass demonstration in which thousands and thousands of farmers from throughout Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick massed on the lawns of Parliament.
We believe that an urgent debate is required in order to expose and to ventilate these frustrations which all Canadian farmers feel today.
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is quite aware of the problems raised yesterday by Canadian farmers. However, I do not believe that the situation calls for an emergency debate at this time.

If we are to look at the requirements stated in Standing Order 52,1 do not think for the time being that this would require a debate at this time.
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thesday, November 21, 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.
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak on this bill, although it is a very difficult matter. It is the act respecting abortion, Bill C-43.
I believe the bill is unfortunately mistaken. It is no doubt well meant, but I believe if it were enacted it would do more harm than good. Therefore, I must oppose it.
In brief, the bill tries to outlaw abortion by using the Criminal Code and the threat of prison, but then it goes on to try to excuse abortion in most of those cases.
What is the effect? The effect will be confusion. It will be to make a number of women and doctors fearful, perhaps with cause, that is, that they might be imprisoned, perhaps without cause. The results in the courts will be uncertain. It will worsen conditions for normal childbirth; and it will not reduce the number of abortions.
It is the wrong way to go. It is impractical. There is no need to recriminalize abortion.
The problem of which abortions are very often the expression is a problem of family life. We should rather be looking at the causes of family trouble.
In fact, it is my understanding that abortion from a moral standpoint may be murder of a person, as some people are pointing out in this debate, but that from a legal standpoint the comparison with murder is mistaken. The reason is that the foetus is inside another person. Even if the foetus be regarded as a person still the fact is unchanged that it is inside another person. We cannot separate them to protect one or both separately.

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
I want to remind the House of part of the opinion given by Chief Justice Brian Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada who said:
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 a violation of security of the person.
In the same court Madam Justice Bertha Wilson said:
Liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve the personal decisions made by its citizens; it does, however, require the state to respect them.
I believe along with her that this is a personal decision in which there is indeed a moral obligation. There may be several moral obligations. They may even seem to be in conflict with each other. The state does not have a duty to agree with this decision or that decision in that case but it does have a duty to respect the decision.
She goes on to state:
It is a decision that deeply reflects the way the woman thinks about herself and her relationship to others and to society at large. It is 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.
In other words, it is not a private, individual or isolated act. It is the act of a person who is a member of society and who normally recognizes that membership. It seems to me that there is a tendency among some of the remarks I have heard in this debate to regard women in a traditional way as somehow weaker. Not only weaker in body, but weaker in moral fibre. I do not know any good reason for holding that view. We do not assume that about men in that case, although there could be an argument for saying that generally women exercise more responsibility about childbirth than men do. In a country where most of the police are men, most of the lawyers are men, most of the judges are men, most of the legislators are men, it is a little disturbing to hear again and again the suggestion that a woman is not fit to make this moral decision.
The fact is that there are countries that have taken the line that some people here would like them to take, countries such as Brazil, Ireland, Italy and Romania.
They all have very severe laws against abortion. They all have a much higher rate of abortion than Canada does.
It seems foolish to repeat their experience by insisting on an extreme law, an extreme threat of punishment in the matter of abortion. In Brazil, there are 4 million abortions annually where there are 3 million live births. That is a dreadful situation, but it is not stopped by criminal threats. In Romania, I read in The Toronto Star, the birthrate there has dropped from 24 births per thousand women in the late 1940s to 14 per thousand in our time. This is in spite of a very severe prohibition and threat of punishment for abortion. In fact abortion deaths there have soared from about 25 per million women in the year before the present government to about 100 per million-four times the amount in the 1980s.
There seems no good reason among those who have spoken for recriminalizing abortion. In fact, it is not even clear that there is any reason to change the status since the Morgentaler decision.
Planned Parenthood has pointed out that abortions have not increased since the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in January, 1988. That is in its report from which I have just quoted.
The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada does not feel that the situation is out of hand because we lack specific criminal prohibition of abortion. The society points this out in its official statement entitled, the "SOGC Abortion Position",
To circumvent the need for abortion should always be the ultimate goal. To this end, there is great value and urgency for provincial Ministers of Health, Education and Social and Community Services to integrate programs devoted to sex education with family planning clinics and abortion services. Only in this way can the adolescent population that contributes so heavily to the abortion statistics be reached effectively.
They also point out that the decision to perform an abortion should be considered a medical one and as such the issue of therapeutic abortions should be removed from Canadian criminal law.
This is the opinion of the specialists in this subject. They go on to state:
Nevertheless, abortion services should be uniformly available to women across Canada.
Of course this law does absolutely nothing to bring that about.
November 22, 1989

The Canadian Medical Association has also issued its statement in the matter in which, in part, it states:
The decision to perform an induced abortion is a medical one made confidentially-
That is an important point, Madam Speaker.
-between the patient and her physician within the confines of existing Canadian law. The decision is made after conscientious examination of all other options.
The proposed bill is rather insulting to all these medical doctors by suggesting that they are not now exercising their professional responsibility in the matter.
Induced abortion requires medical and surgical expertise and is a medical act. It should be performed only in a facility that meets approved medical standards, not necessarily a hospital.
The argument some people have used is that there are a growing number of abortions. Certainly I, for one, am not happy with the number of abortions, or even with any abortions. My wife and I, as we have had opportunity, have occasionally been able to encourage and help a person to choose a course of action other than abortion, but it was her choice.
The statistics are interesting. In 1970 there were 11,200 abortions in Canada. In 1982, there were 66,319, a large increase. But in 1987, there were 63,662, almost 3,000 less abortions five years later. There has not been an explosion of abortions.
If you look at how many abortions are performed per thousand women, again the number rose 2.5 per thousand women in 1970. In 1982 it was 11.1 per thousand women; and then it dropped in 1987 to 10.2 per thousand women.
It is interesting if you look at the ratio of abortions per hundred to live births to see how many abortions there were. It went from three in 1970 to 17.8 in 1982, again a large increase. It then dropped a small amount to 17.2 in 1987. Abortions peaked in 1982 and have been declining since then. That is true of the number of abortions per woman and the number of abortions per live births, although they declined less.
I think the explanation is in the live birth rate, not in the abortion rate. In 1970 there were 371,988 live births. In 1982, 12 years later with a larger population, there were 372,882, only 900 more, a very tiny increase of live
Government Orders
births. In 1987, there were 372,080; in other words, a drop of 800 live births between 1982 and 1987, a time when there was a drop of 3,000 in the number of abortions.
The problem is not with abortions. When the population has gone up by 20 per cent, obviously the number of women has increased. The proportion of abortions to women has gone down slightly. The proportion of abortions to live births has gone down slightly more. The problem is not with abortions but with the country's fertility rate; that is to say from the point of view of those who worry about the number of live births. I do not worry about it personally. Alice and I have seven children and 13 grandchildren and we are hoping for more grandchildren.
Those who talk about the rate of abortions imply that somehow or other it is a cause in itself of all these troubles. That is simply not true. It is much more a result of the breakdown of family life: the rate of divorce, the rate of separation and the large number of single parents, mostly women. These are very much concerns of the last 20 and 30 years. To pin them all down to abortion would be to stand the matter on its head. Other speakers have pointed out, including the last speaker last night, Mrs. Bertrand, that we should be looking at the sources of family trouble. I find those sources largely in a market-driven economy. Children are treated as unproductive or at least unprofitable. In other words, we seem to be sliding back to the days when governments in England in the last century had to legislate that it was not allowable to cause children under 10 years of age to work in the mines. The issue of child labour, or the proposal of child labour, has only been advocated by a few groups like the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. It is not a serious threat yet.
What is a serious threat is the refusal of those who build our cities and housing to provide room physically for children. In Toronto, between 1951 and 1971 there was a net loss of about 20,000 units that had two bedrooms. There are other characteristics of family units but that is a basic one. Just recently, between 1976 and 1985, in the new building with demolition subtracted-in other words, the net increase of residential units-the units that were suitable for families in 1976 were 32.4 per cent of the whole. They declined from there so that the

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
average now is that family units are only 17.5 per cent of the total units of housing being built in the city of Toronto.
Of course, the builders argued that it was the market which wants that. In fact, I have many people coming to me now, as they came when I was an alderman in the centre of the city, complaining about not being able to find a place for children. In the 1970s it was landlords who explicitly and openly forbade children in their apartments which is now, fortunately, illegal.
In the city of Toronto in 1971, there were 28.6 children for every 100 adults and in 1986 there were only 20.5. In other words, there has been a drop from 28.6 to 20.5 in 15 years in the percentage of children to adults.
In Toronto, children are hungry. According to the Daily Bread Food Bank survey, an estimated 72,000 children 17 years of age and under in metro have found it necessary to use a food program on an average of three times in the past year. Of families using food assistance, I quote: "Sixty-five per cent are single-parent families; 15 per cent of all metro families are single-parent families, but 65 per cent use the food banks". Again I quote: "Children nine years of age or younger are 11.3 per cent of the population of metro but 28.3 per cent of the food bank population". In other words, children of nine years of age have an almost three times greater chance of being forced to go to the food banks.
Those figures from the Daily Bread Food Bank relate to the people who have come to my office because they cannot find a place to live where they can pay rent and still have money for food for themselves and their children. This is a very serious problem in family life in our cities. No wonder there are strains, wife beatings, child beatings, break-up of families when it is impossible to find a place to live without moving right out of the city, when it is impossible to find a place to work since Toronto has a high level of unemployment, even if you do not count the 10,000 or 20,000 people who are homeless because nobody can survey them to find out whether they were looking for work last week.
It goes further than that. There are many ways in which the economy of this country, which finds children unprofitable and therefore considers them really unproductive, simply prices children not only out of the city but out of a decent chance to live. It is very often the mothers of those children who decide that they will make
a dreadful decision to avoid having more children that they cannot feed.
My points are that the bill is mistaken. It will not work. My point is that it is ethically wrong to confuse a moral decision and a moral responsibility with a legal responsibility. My point is there is no occasion for recriminalizing abortion because the medical profession has it properly in hand. There is no crisis of increased abortion. There is a crisis of family life. Therefore, this bill should be scrapped and the government should get to work with some of its promises to provide for day care and the other things that a family needs.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the debate of the hon. member from Spadina. I would like at the outset to indicate that contrary to his suggestion that because abortion is a moral issue, therefore there ought to be no law on it, I would like to remind the hon. member that in the history of legal construction, the foundation of a good law in fact is morality.
My questions for the hon. member are: first, would he agree that where there are no genuine reasons to do an abortion he would respect the decision of the physician, rather than just asking whether there be no medical reasons not to have an abortion, as his leader said yesterday? There is a great deal of difference between the two positions.
It is the tradition of medical practice, as a medical doctor by background, that before a physician does a medical procedure or prescribes therapy, there ought to exist a rationale for treatment. It is not enough only to say that there does not exist a contraindication for such a treatment. That is only one of the factors when a physician prescribes a therapy.
My second question for the hon. member is: would he agree that when a medical doctor says that there exists no indication for abortion he would respect not only the decision of that medical doctor but also to require that the decision ought to be based only on the basis that there is a threat to the life of the pregnant mother.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's first point, I would say that while law should be based on moral considerations, not by any means every moral consideration ought to be made the subject of a law. There are many moral considerations which must be left to individuals singly or in groups to work out among themselves. This is one of them.

Second, the position that I have taken, and for that matter my leader has taken, and that the Medical Association and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has taken is not the position that the hon. member has suggested. They are not saying they will do an abortion only when they find medical grounds. What they have said is abortion should not be regulated in the Criminal Code. They would want to make sure that the abortion was done under appropriate conditions. They have not defined the conditions in the statements that I have referred to because we have recognized in our law, including the criminal law, that the doctor has the responsibility for judging those conditions. That is not to say that they will judge them only on medical grounds.
Poverty may not be a medical matter but it has medical consequences. For example, it has been found in Montreal that children born of mothers who have been malnourished are almost certainly doomed to an unhealthy life. That is the kind of thing that a doctor may recognize even though it is not necessarily the subject of a medical decision.
The point I am making is the reasons for abortion. The reasons why in fact women have chosen abortion and will continue to choose abortion regardless of what the hon. member may wish, regardless of what I may wish, are social and economic. They have to do with the fact that a great many mothers now must work; with the fact that a great many fathers now do not want to support their children or do it badly. Those are the sorts of facts that move many women to seek an abortion. They are not a matter for a medical judgment but they are a matter for medical care by a qualified practitioner. That is the point that the Medical Association has made.


Mr. Crosby:: Madam Speaker, just briefly, I would like to make some comments on the whole subject of criminalization in relation to abortion because I have heard the pleas of the member for Trinity-Spadina and his complaint that he does not want to see abortion criminalized. That notion is unwarranted, given the state of law in Canada.
Government Orders
The Parliament of Canada has only one basis for legislating with respect to abortion and that is the criminal law power. There is no other way the Parliament of Canada can legislate with respect to abortion unless it exercises its power to enact criminal law. It is only in that academic sense that Parliament is criminalizing abortion.
The whole fact of the matter is that if there is to be a prohibition, there must be a sanction, there must be a penalty and that can be called criminal law. Whether the province enacts legislation dealing with abortion, as has happened in my province of Nova Scotia restricting the place at which abortions can be performed, or whether the Parliament of Canada enacts a prohibition, it must be enforced by a penalty and that is what we call criminal law.
The question is not really criminalizing abortion, the question is: are we going to legislate with respect to abortion? I hope the member will understand that because his or her choice, as a member of Parliament, is to vote against the law, whether they characterize it as criminal or some other kind of a law.
The real question is, and I do not want to see the member avoid it: should Parliament legislate with respect to abortion? That is the issue. Do not be confused by terms like criminalize and so on. Make your decision on that question: should Parliament legislate with respect to abortion? I think that Parliament should legislate with respect to abortion. If the member does not agree with that, he simply votes against it. Do not bring in questions like criminalize or non-criminalize to confuse the issue.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I think Parliament should indeed legislate with respect to abortion. I do not share the hon. member's one-eyed vision where he thinks the only thing Parliament can do is to prohibit. Of course, if the member wants to prohibit abortion or if the member wants to prohibit wearing eye glasses or having white hair or anything like that, the only way he can do it is by getting Parliament to put it into the Criminal Code.
I do not want to prohibit abortion. I would like to bring abortions to an end or to a much smaller number. I have spoken before and today on how that should be done. Prohibition is what I said did not work in Ireland, Italy,

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
Brazil, Romania and probably failed to work in many other countries. It is a stupid thing to tty here.
There is legislation that Parliament ought to consider for abortion. It ought to amend the National Health Act to ensure that the basic principle of the National Health Act is upheld across this country and that abortion services are equally available to women in all parts of Canada. That would be parliamentary legislation which would improve the health of all concerned. It would be a step to accompany, for example, legislation, to provide day care services for the children of working mothers which would do more than anything else I can think of to reduce the number of abortions.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-43, legislation that we have introduced to deal with abortion.
Some of my colleagues will know that I have spoken in this House on three previous occasions on the issue of abortion: twice with respect to private members' bills and once last year when we had the debate to determine if there might be a sense of the House about how we might proceed with the issue.
I think my personal views which I have expressed on this issue are well known to members of the Housed believe that women should have the broadest possible range of freedom to make decisions about themselves, their bodies and their futures. Like many of my colleagues, particularly some of my female colleagues who have spoken on this legislation in the past week, I have come to this debate with some concerns, a lot of thought and some heartache but finally in my own mind with a recognition that what we have brought forward is fair and does meet basic criteria which I believe are important for women and is also workable.
I also understand how so many other of my colleagues, who have come to view this issue from a different kind of perspective, have worked hard and how caucus members have worked together to see if there is a way that we can jointly come forward with what the role of the state and the government should be in providing a regime with respect to abortion. Upon reflection, I will be supporting the bill because I think it is fair; I think it is workable.
I would like the opportunity today to go back and look at how I feel and where I have come from on this debate, talk a bit about the legislation and talk a bit in more general terms about the issue of abortion itself. Certainly, in terms of my own thinking this goes back many, many years recognizing that as a woman in modern-day society we have had to fight pretty long and hard to gain legal equality, to gain economic and social equality in many areas.
I suppose that many of us come from the strong feeling that we do not want to see anything or any law which would in any way restrict that freedom that we fought so hard for. If we look at this issue purely from a feminist point of view, we have difficulty accepting any kinds of restrictions in law that might restrict our ability to make a choice as to whether or not we would want to have an abortion or proceed with a pregnancy.
I also think we have to recognize that no rights are absolute in society and that there always has to be a balance. No one of us can do anything that we want at any time, particularly if it is going to interfere with somebody else. The role of the state is to regulate between often conflicting rights, sometimes the rights of the individual versus the rights of a group or between individuals. That is one of our responsibilities as legislators, to try to achieve that balance while minimizing the interference of the state in the lives of Canadian men and women.
When we think of what we are dealing with here, are there reasons why the state should play a role? Why should I, as a woman, accept that someone else can interfere with my decision? I think there are reasons. When we are dealing with the issue of abortion, we are dealing with something that is different, that does reflect on some very important values that we hold as a society. I guess it does come back to the issue of life or the potential of life. I am not the expert. I am not the one who can say when life begins, and I am not even pretending to be able to do that. However, there is within this issue a recognition of that concern and that value.
As a Canadian society we treasure life. It is fundamental to everything we do in this Parliament, everything we try to do as governments to protect life and to prevent people from interfering with other persons' lives. We pass laws that deal with murder, with assault and with interfering with property rights. We also try in every way
November 22, 1989

possible to enhance the quality of people's lives through the economic and social policies that we put forward because we believe that that is fundamentally our responsibility.
Sometimes when we compare our society with other societies around the world we can see some differences. Whether those differences are rooted in philosophical or religious beliefs, I do not think it matters. But, I think it does matter that in Canadian society we do treasure life. If someone is killed in an automobile accident, that is considered a tragedy and we use the force of the law to sanction those who might have caused that. In some other parts of the world that is not necessarily the case. I think that is a value we have to hold very dear.
When we come back to looking at the question of abortion, I think we do have to consider that balance. This is perhaps an area in which the state does have a legitimate role, a role which the Supreme Court of Canada in dealing with the Morgentaler case recognized that there needed to be a balance between the security of the woman and the potential interest of the state in the foetus. I can accept that balance and therefore I can accept at this time in an imperfect society that we have a right and indeed a responsibility to provide a regime, a set of rules, which tell Canadians on what grounds there is a legal entitlement to abortion and provides a national standard.
I have also had the feeling from many women and men that I have talked to across the country who support the right of women to choose and believe that abortion should be a matter of discussion between a woman and a physician that they want to feel that there are some bounds, that there is some sense as a society that we have a regime in which abortion is regulated. I have come after some considerable thought to accept at this point that we can have a law and if we have a law, what criteria in my mind would be most appropriate?
In coming back to my fundamental belief in the rights of women, I would say first of all it should be a law which minimizes the interference with the right of women to make choices about themselves, about their bodies and about their future. It should be the least intrusive, it should be workable and not create impediments in terms of delays as we had under the former law which created impediments that were inappropriate. It should also in
Government Orders
my mind not restrict where, when or how abortions can be performed.
Abortion, I think everyone would agree, requires medical intervention. We do not want women going back to the past when they tried to induce their own abortions. That is not the right thing. It is not condoned in our society. It is not right for women or for their health. We recognize that it requires the intervention of a qualified medical practitioner and in this legislation we have provided for that, which is determined on the basis of provincial legislation which licenses persons as qualified medical practitioners. Therefore, if it does require a medical procedure, does require the intervention of a medical practitioner, I think it would be irresponsible not to recognize, as my colleague across the floor has indicated, a medical practitioner has to play some role. They have to make a professional judgment about the implications of this medical procedure for the woman and that there has been some considered thought in this decision.
In the legislation we have provided for the criteria to be that if the pregnancy would likely hinder the woman's health, with health being defined in a broad context including physical, mental and psychological, it then provides a joint responsibility. A woman herself has to consider, as I believe she should, why she might wish to proceed with an abortion. Also she would have the professional advice of a medical practitioner who might be able to advise her, first of all, given her particular circumstances what the medical implications might be for her health if she proceeded or not. Obviously there are implications both ways when you are dealing with an issue of this nature.
When we look in terms of society at who can share in making this kind of decision, I think it is appropriate that it is a medical practitioner. That does not, in my mind, take away in an unacceptable manner the right of women to make choices but it is a choice in consultation with a medical practitioner.
The legislation does not restrict where abortions may take place. That would be up to provincial governments. On the other hand, as my colleague from Vancouver Centre pointed out last night-and I agree with her because it does confirm abortion as a medical procedure-it gives greater weight to the understanding that as a medical procedure it should be covered by provincial health care plans. If there were not that kind of consideration it might be easier for provinces to say: "It is not a

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
medical procedure. It does not relate to health. Therefore we do not have a responsibility under our health care plan to provide for it". I think it does help in that respect as well.
There were other approaches that we had discussed. In fact, when we had the debate last year, I put forward an amendment to the motion that was being considered which would have introduced a gestational approach and different degrees of intervention and/or sanctions depending upon the stage of pregnancy.
After having thought about this and talked it over with people of a wide variety of opinions and opposing opinions, I am comfortable with the concept that we should not proceed on that basis. I know some of my colleagues would say that that in itself would imply differential values at different stages of pregnancy. I can find that that is distasteful. It is not necessarily sound philosophically or from any particular point of view.
Also the gestational approach implied incorrectly that women would wait until later stages of pregnancy. We all know that that is not correct. Over 99 per cent of abortions are carried out during the earlier stages and, if a woman is going to make the choice, except under the most unusual circumstances that choice will be made as early as possible. With the legislative base we are proposing, I believe that we will ensure and enhance that abortions can be carried out as quickly as possible because the procedures involved are not complicated. It requires the woman to seek the opinion of her doctor and then be able to proceed.
The other issue which many colleagues have talked about in this House and which friends of mine have discussed is why the Criminal Code, I guess because the Criminal Code connotes in our minds something that is wrong. I do not think that is a fair reflection.
The member for Halifax West who just spoke a few moments ago had a more appropriate perception of why it is necessary to use the Criminal Code. If we are to provide a regulatory regime, a national standard with respect to legal entitlement for abortion, there has to be a mechanism. There has to be a power of government to proceed, and that really is the only one that we have at the federal level.
It does not imply in any way that abortions are wrong. All it is saying is that these are the conditions under which women are legally entitled to have an abortion and that under some situations, either if it is not carried out by a medical practitioner or the criteria are not met, it would be considered inappropriate and the sanction of the law would come forward.
It is wrong to say that this legislation criminalizes abortion or criminalizes women who seek abortions. That is not the intent; that is not the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law is to provide an appropriate, fair regime under which abortions in Canada can proceed.
I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the issue of abortion. No one likes it. No one wishes it upon women. In fact, our deepest desire from all parts of the House would be to try to find ways to minimize the reasons for abortion, the reasons why women seek it as an option. We can never hope to minimize that to zero. I certainly have friends who, despite their best efforts with respect to birth control which has failed, find themselves in a situation where either for health reasons or because they do not want to they are unable to proceed with the pregnancy.
There is a lot we can do. As you look at the figures you recognize it is still young women who are seeking abortions. I read in the paper the other day that in Ontario in 1987, 47 per cent of young women between the ages of 15 and 19 sought abortions. In the Ottawa region itself it was higher. It was 62 per cent of young women between the ages of 15 and 19. That is a very sad reflection. There is something wrong there.
About 15 years ago I was living in Sudbury. I wrote and produced a documentary for the local television station on abortion. I called it To Have or Have Not. Those were early days and I believe in Sudbury it was not possible to obtain a legal abortion because of restrictions in the hospital. It was considered quite something to actually have a television show that talked about these issues.
During the course of researching and producing that documentary I met with people from all different sectors-women who had sought abortions and members of the local women's centre which was the only referral agency to assist women in obtaining abortions. They had to go either to other parts of Ontario or to the United States at that point in time.
November 22, 1989

I talked to women who had decided not to proceed with abortions but to put the baby up for adoption, and I also talked to representatives of agencies involved in that area. I talked to young women who had proceeded with the pregnancy, kept the child and as young unmarried mothers were still trying to cope with completing their schooling or finding a way to survive the problems and how they felt about it. It was a very moving experience to go through that process.
What saddened and angered me was that it seemed that all those women were in losing situations. None of those were really the answer. The answer lay in more effective education and action with respect to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies among that age group, and in a willingness to be more open, to talk about women's reproductive capabilities and what is involved in sexual relations between young people, and to try to encourage both young men and women to accept a greater degree of personal responsibility for their behaviour and to truly seek more viable options for women. Certainly at that time-and I do not think it has improved significantly since-the option of the young woman trying to keep a child creates barriers for her which are almost insurmountable in our society.
I was pleased when the Minister of National Health and Welfare spoke on this issue several days ago and announced a number of new initiatives dealing with all those areas-assisting young people in their own reproduction and in education and improving access to adoption. All those are important. It is not something that we at the federal level can do ourselves. It is something that has to be done in concert with other levels of government, in the community, and with families. There must be a willingness to be more open.
I know the experience that I have had. I am sure other members have had it. I also consider it to be a sad commentary. A co-worker of mine some years ago, a good friend, was totally opposed to abortion. We had many discussions about this. He was absolutely adamant in his views.
I remember some time later that he found out that his 18-year old daughter had gone to the United States one weekend and had an abortion. She felt that she could not go to her father, knowing his views, that it would not be accepted and that she had to go off on her own to do this. He was stricken. I was saddened.
Government Orders
Despite one's personal views about these kinds of issues, surely we have to encourage a more open dialogue among men and women and between parents and children so that we can deal with these issues more effectively and help our young people in ways in which I think they want to be helped. They want that kind of understanding. They need that knowledge, and they need that acceptance.
My plea to my colleagues in the House of Commons today is: yes, support the bill. We need to get on with this and get it behind us. Also, let us work together to ensure that Canadian women truly have options and that we indeed have a greater esteem and respect for Canadian children.


Jesse Philip Flis: I enjoyed listening to the hon. member. She has given the topic a great deal of thought, time and research, as has almost eveiy speaker who has risen in this House. It takes a topic like this to bring out the true parliamentarian in all of us. I congratulate the speaker for her words.
I was pleased she highlighted that as a Canadian society we treasure life, we protect life. She is right on there. I think that is what makes the Canadian society a little unique, maybe more unique than many other countries. It gives us that identity because we do have this respect for life, this respect for others.
This is why I am having difficulty in trying to analyse why she would support the bill. The hon. member from Trinity-Spadina gave us statistics that for 1987, 63,662 abortions were performed. He was impressed that this was 3,000 less than the year before, but it is still snuffing out the lives of over 63,000 children. This bill will not reduce that. If this bill goes through we will continue to have more than 60,000 to 70,000 lives snuffed out, which goes against Canadian society that treasures life. The minister also said that when someone gets killed in an auto accident we have laws so that one person cannot take the life of another person.
I am one of those who believes that life does begin at conception. I am wondering if the hon. member could clarify how she came to that conclusion, knowing that this bill will snuff out over 60,000 lives a year, and how she can still support the bill.
Just for interest, she also mentioned the right of women to make choices. I called one of the pages and asked for the Oxford Dictionary. I looked up the definition of choices and it said: "variety to choose from". I think that is the beauty of our society too that men and

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
women who are of an age where they want to have sexual encounters have this variety to choose from. If they make the right choice, there will not be life and there will not be a need for abortion.
With her experience in the television program where she was doing the interviewing, I am wondering if she could share with this House how we can teach our young people-and she specifically mentioned the ages 15 to 19-to make the right choices but to make the choices before the pregnancy, before conception, again not requiring so many abortions.


Mary Collins: The member has put a number of questions. I am not sure I will have an opportunity to address them all in the question and comment period today.
It comes back to the balance that I see. Yes, we treasure life, but we also treasure the rights of women to make decisions about that. In my mind the woman should be able to make that choice. I hope she makes an informed choice if she is in the situation of having to make it and understands the implication of that choice. She should have the opportunity, as broad an opportunity as possible within the regime that we are putting forward, to make those choices. That just comes from my own view of the world and the way it should be. I would not place the responsibility or the onus on this law or this bill for causing or not causing abortions in itself. There are a variety of reasons that women seek abortions. In my mind at least it is not fair to say that this bill will result in increased abortions. I hope indeed that if we progress as a society we will see fewer abortions.
What do I say to young people? I have three teenagers myself. My daughter and I talk about this quite a lot, actually. She has some very strong views and is quite abhorred by some of the laws she is familiar with in the States where in some cases a young woman would have no access to abortion or a court, a judge has to make that decision. She thinks that is totally wrong and that it should be a decision between a woman and her doctor.
I have tried to instil a sense of responsibility and that there are consequences to actions. You cannot tell young people not to engage in sexual activity. They are going to have to make up their own minds about that. It has changed from my day and young people perhaps act
quite differently now, but I think they have to be prepared for the consequences and therefore take measures, preventive measures. The onus should not only be on the woman. That is one of the things that has always annoyed me in the past, that society has said it is the woman who should take the preventive measures. I think men, young men particularly in this case, have to accept that responsibility as well.
As I said before in my comments this takes education. It takes openness and willingness to talk about it. It is not the approach where you pretend it does not happen. It does happen. It is there. The facts tell us that young people engage in sexual activity. We may have our own views about that, but all we can do is help them through that process and try to assist them in understanding what their responsibilities to themselves and to their own future are as well.
A young girl of 14 or 15 just does not usually have the capacity to look after a young child. Therefore, it is not fair that she should engage in activity that could result in a child being bom, without taking appropriate measures. There should be a lot more willingness to be open on these issues.


Lynn Hunter: It should be clear to the minister how disappointed I personally am, and I imagine many of her constituents are, with this Byzantine rationalization to support this bill.
There are a number of points I want to make. I listened with care to her remarks, and I think those remarks were based on the assumption that the great Canadian compromise will bring some resolution to this very painful debate that we are now engaged in. I would like to ask her to respond to that because I think she and I both know that this is not going to be resolved. This is going to be an ongoing, continuing debate as our society develops.
The other comment I would like to make is that she said: "some bounds are necessary". I would like her to answer whether or not she does not believe that women really are capable of imposing their own bounds on that kind of decision. I think that does speak to the kind of respect the minister has for women and their capacity for making painful decisions.
November 22, 1989

I also would like her to try to get me to understand why she characterizes this bill as fair and workable and why there should be a national standard, because it does not improve any ability for access in this bill.
Finally, I would like her to clarify also her allusion to the Supreme Court decision regarding the foetus in light of the Daigle decision last week which I think made quite clear that the foetus really has no rights unless the child is bom alive.


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, my understanding of the decision last week by the Supreme Court is that it referred specifically to the Quebec charter, that they have not yet dealt with the other cases before them, so I do not know what their ruling will be.
With respect to access, this bill does not in itself provide or ensure access. We know the difficulties in certain parts of the country. I also recognize that that is a provincial responsibility. Our responsibility at the federal level is providing the legal framework, and a legal framework which I believe will be more conducive because it will be a national standard. Ultimately, if a province is not providing the service and it is taken to court, it would provide greater justification to be able to be successful in such a case.
I believe compromise is essential in a democracy. I know we all have very strong views about different issues and that this is the place we express and debate those views. We will never really be able to get on with things unless we are prepared to compromise.
I have talked to people from newly developing democracies, to Mrs. Aquino who was here recently, about the difficulties they are having in the new Philippine Parliament, as well as to others in other Parliaments.
One of the difficulties is that people have not been used to this aspect, that you have to be prepared to compromise. If you just hold stringently to two opposing grounds you will never get anywhere. We do that within our caucus and I am sure within the caucus of the hon. member. This is the only way you can move forward. You have to come to a compromise so that you can move ahead with a position which you believe is probably in the best interests of the whole, although it might not be what you prefer personally.
Government Orders
In this case, yes, it is a compromise. We have all admitted that. We have all had to put some water in our wine, as the Prime Minister said, but I believe in the interests of not resolving the issue forever. I know it will not be. I know it will continue to be debated. However, for the majority of Canadians-and this is certainly the feedback that I have had in my riding-this is an appropriate compromise in balancing the different points of view and different interests involved in this issue. Perhaps it is a typical but an appropriate Canadian compromise.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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 York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-The Budget-Request for budget with-drawal/Request for Minister's resignation; the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Anawak)-Canada Post; the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. Brewin)-Transportation of dangerous goods/Emergency preparedness.



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 (Mrs. Champagne):: I should also advise the House that we have now completed the first eight hours of debate. From now on the members' interventions will be of a 10-minute duration.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the beginning of the debate this afternoon we allowed members of the New Democratic Party and on the government side a 20-minute speech, each subject to

Government Orders
a 10-minute question and comment period. Since you, Madam Speaker, decided not to see the clock beyond the 61 minutes, I wonder if we could request that the next speaker proceed with a 20-minute presentation as well in light of the complexity of the issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair did allow the last exchange to go about two minutes more than the 10-minute period should have gone. The debate has gone for eight hours now and, unless the House gives unanimous consent otherwise, we should proceed with 10-minute speeches. Those are the rules.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: I regret the determination, indeed. Could there be unanimous consent for my suggestion?


Mr. Nicholson:: I am sympathetic to what my hon. friend has to say. My only concern is that I know many members of Parliament have expressed an interest and that many of them are planning to speak tonight. If they do not speak tonight, they will not be able to speak at all for one reason or another. I would suggest, as much as I would like to accommodate my friend from across the aisle, that we now move to 10-minute speeches.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention.
I think he should realize that the reason there were two speakers who had a period of 20 minutes to express themselves, followed by a 10-minute question and answer period, was simply that we were following our rules. There was not any question of making preferences between the different parties. I was in the chair yesterday and we followed the same rotation all day.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour today and in fact my duty, as it is the duty of every member of this House, to address these very important issues. We have now come to a point where decisions should be made. The decisions that are before us are: When do we terminate a pregnancy, what rights do individuals have in our society, and what are the rights of the unborn child from the moment of conception?
This government has brought in legislation, Bill C-43, which it hopes will address these problems. I suggest that the legislation does not address the problems. The legislation in no way goes anywhere near correcting the problems before the House. Therefore, the legislation is
fundamentally flawed. It should be turned down and sent back to this government for reconsideration and redrafting. Then a new piece of legislation could come before this House. It is the duty of the House to bring forth acceptable legislation, and this legislation is certainly not acceptable in its present form.
Let me deal first with some of the arguments that we have heard and have been hearing since the introduction of Bill C-43 from both sides. We hear that at least we now have some legislation, inadequate as it is, but it is better to have this legislation than no legislation at all, inasmuch as no legislation at all allows abortion on demand.
The other thing we hear is: let's get this bill into committee, then at committee stage we can make some amendments and bring it back before this House with the amendments we want.
We also hear that we should draft the amendments, approve them, incorporate them into the legislation, bring the bill before this House, pass it, but before it receives Royal Assent, send it to the Supreme Court of Canada on a reference to test its authenticity, to see if it would pass Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I say that these arguments do not hold water. They are not acceptable. It is the duty of the governing party to bring forth legislation, and it is the duty of the opposition to challenge, correct and refine legislation before the House. In this instance it is the duty, then, of each of us in our own conscience to reject or accept the proposed law. It is still the fundamental duty of this government to legislate, but what it has done in this instance is bring forth a very neutral proposal. The legislation before us lacks in total substance. In fact it has very little substance at all.
When the Minister of Justice proposed this legislation, he said in this House on November 7 that the new abortion law had as its overriding objective the balancing of interests-the rights and interests of women, society's interest, and the protection of the foetus. This legislation does not realize these objectives. It does not satisfy those who oppose the termination of pregnancy, and it certainly does not satisfy those who prefer choice as to whether that pregnancy should be terminated.
November 22, 1989

The law that was struck down on January 28, 1988, in the Morgentaler case, and then the law that was stated by the Supreme Court on November 16, 1989, said that no one has the right to seek an injunction depriving a woman of her right to terminate the pregnancy.
The proposed legislation that we have before us is contrary to this decision. It invites any third party to press criminal charges against a woman or a doctor if there is evidence of an unlawful early termination of pregnancy.
Bill C-43 may be in violation of the Charter of Rights since it in effect removes all choice from the woman, leaving the decision entirely in the hands of a physician. We as legislators, I suggest, cannot abrogate our rights to the courts or to the medical profession. It is the duty of the courts to interpret legislation; it is a duty of the medical profession to heal; and it is the duty of this House to form legislation.
The government has said in this legislation that the decision for the early termination of pregnancies should be left entirely in the hands of the physician. We hear of the Morgentaler decision; we hear of the Morgentaler clinics. We hear the name of Morgentaler but we never hear of the preface. It is not Mr. Morgentaler or Master Morgentaler, it is Dr. Morgentaler. I ask, is this the type of person who will be making decisions on whether or not pregnancies should be terminated?
The bill is pro choice for doctors but has no choice for women. I think it removes all discretionary rights from the woman in her visits to the doctor. The Chief Justice said on January 28, when he struck down the present law, that to carry a foetus to term, unless she meets certain criteria related to her own priorities and aspirations, is profound interference with the woman's body, and this is a violation of the person. I suggest that the proposed legislation before this House is open to challenge on the same grounds as the former law.
Let me discuss one of the fundamental issues that this legislation lacks and that is the rights of the unborn child. This legislation certainly does not address this issue. Joseph Borowski failed to assert fetal rights because there was no longer an abortion law upon which
Government Orders
to base a challenge. The proposed legislation does not address the rights of the unborn.
As we discuss the rights of the unborn, just for a few moments let us remove any thoughts of religion from the equation, because this is the area where we run into some difficulty from a religious aspect or from our own beliefs. The greatest thing left to us, with the removal of God or religion from the argument, is life itself.
Even the most radical secular person, the most hedonistic of individuals, must struggle at some time with the fundamental question of when life begins, when life ends, under what circumstances life can be ended, when life must be protected, and what authority in our society protects life? Is it our legal authorities, medical authorities or our church authorities who protect life in our society, or is it a combination of these elements?
In our society, what protection do we extend to the lives of the helpless, the dying, the aged, and the unborn? We must look at all of these phases of life.
Even if some scientists or theologians state that in the early stages of pregnancy we cannot discern human life, the fact remains that the potential of human life is indisputably there. I believe there should be some respect and some caution if the potential is there. At the veiy least, the potential for life exists and that should unequivocally be respected.
As I was putting together some thoughts about this submission I received in the mail this morning a letter from a Mr. and Mrs. Kowalski. They said something that I want to include in my remarks:
Visit your aged mother or grandmother and kiss them tenderly; give your spouse, or your friend a warm hug; take a child's hand, or let an infant grasp your finger and look in their 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!
I suggest that the legislation before us today is about life but it fails and fails badly in dealing with life. Let me close by saying that I am glad that I had the opportunity to address this issue. It is so important that I am able to close on the aspect of when life begins and I thank you for the opportunity of being able to address this issue.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate on Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion.

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
As we have seen, the issue of abortion has touched an emotional chord in practically every Canadian across our country. This is one of the most important debates facing our country. Those of us who are pro-life will be fighting for the rights of all unborn children so they will have the opportunity to grow and to reach maturation as God intended. Those who are not pro-life would like to have unrestricted abortion so as to add to the carnage of some 65,000 unborn children who are being killed every year in Canada by abortion, something which a so-called enlightened Canada should never condone or tolerate.
On January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's abortion law. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1973, the Supreme Court of Canada did not rule in the Morgantaler case that women have constitutional rights to abortion.
Nothing in the court's decision prevents Parliament from passing a law banning abortion altogether, a decision that would be consistent with the Charter of Rights. The court ruled that the objective of protecting unborn children is pressing and substantial and that Parliament has the right to pass laws protecting the unborn. Parliament has not only the right but the urgent duty that the state's compelling interest in the promotion of human life beginning at the moment of the child's conception.
It is entirely possible to have a law which would protect all human life from the moment of conception which would be constitutionally valid. To allow the charter to be interpreted in a way that excludes a segment of humanity is to open the door to its total degradation. To accept any law that would recognize wholesale abortion is to accept abortion in principle. If we concede that, we would have no real defence against pressures to accept unlimited abortion.
A law which would permit the killing of innocent human beings would inherently be an evil and unacceptable law. Those who aim to support and pass so-called middle of the road legislation would be simply legalizing abortion. They portray themselves as moderates wanting to please both sides. But since their proposal is not acceptable to those of us who abhor abortions they end up pleasing only those who support abortions. If Parliament ever accepted those proposals, it would simply legalize abortion.
The people who argue that a compromise-type law would only be a necessary and practical step toward better days are not facing the facts. In Great Britain, for example, after 21 years of legalized abortion an attempt was made in 1987 and 1988 to reduce the legislative period of 28 weeks for abortion to 18 to 24 weeks. After strenuous efforts the attempts failed. This ought to teach us not to recklessly support a compromise-type law and lose the opportunity to ban abortion in Canada, except in the few instances of recognized exceptions, such as where the life of the mother is at stake and in cases of rape and incest.
It has been a proven world-wide experience that whenever abortion is available for so-called health reasons, abortion becomes easily available. If there are some restrictions on the meaning of "health", the restrictions are likely to be vague enough to invite wide-scale abuse. Abortionists, who have been defying the law openly for years, will not be restricted from committing abortions by such terms as "seriously", "substantially" and "social". Those, and similar terms, have no legal or medical definition, and are therefore subject to the most liberal interpretation.
The abortion mentality attacks the absolute value of human life and seeks to replace it with a relative value which allows human life to be destroyed if it is unwanted, inconvenient, an economic burden or handicapped. Either by our own action or our own apathy, we are determining the kind of society we will leave to our children. We must ask ourselves: Will it be a caring society, nurturing the helpless and protecting the vulnerable, or will it be a cruel society discarding the socially and economically inconvenient and disguising its cruelty as concern for the quality of life?
We often hear from the pro-choice forces about a woman's freedom to choose. We all value our right to free choice regarding our vocation, our religion, and our goals in life. However, genuine freedom does not give us the right to trample on the human rights of others. The pro-choice slogan focuses on the freedom, while ignoring the choice it demands; the choice to end the life of a living, unborn child. In reality, freedom to choose has become a licence to kill. Women's rights, yes, Madam Speaker, but not at the expense of the human rights of others.

Another slogan of the pro-abortion group is: Should not every child be a wanted child? This slogan makes the faulty assumption that unless the child is wanted, he or she is of no value and can be eliminated by abortion. Simply to be unwanted becomes a capital offence, deserving of a death sentence. Being unwanted is not an attribute of a child. It is truer to say that there are no unwanted children, only parents who are unwilling to raise a child. Nonetheless, that child must always retain his or her right to continue living.
A child cannot be considered merely as property to be disposed of at will. Today, in Canada, there are so many couples waiting to adopt that it has come to the point that many agencies refuse to take new applicants. Yet some 65,000 children are aborted each year because they are unwanted.
We hear also from the pro-abortion groups that unwanted pregnancies result in abused children. How a woman feels during the first months of her pregnancy when her body is undergoing tremendous hormonal changes is not indicative of how she will feel when her baby is placed in her arms. The majority of unwanted pregnancies become very much loved and wanted children. Since we have had virtually abortion on demand in Canada since 1969 and have done away with an estimated 1,200,000 children, the problem of child abuse has not been eliminated but rather has increased to epidemic proportions.
Abortion, the ultimate in child abuse, has not solved the problem of battered children. In fact, since abortion has become commonplace, child abuse has increased by at least 500 per cent. The question has been raised that should we not care about the woman's problem? Undoubtedly we must, but our concern should not mean contempt for the life of the unborn child. Instead, we must have compassion for both and help them in positive and constructive ways. Since 1969, over 2,000 crisis pregnancy centres have been established across North America by pro-life volunteers and others, to give practical assistance to both mother and child during pregnancy and post-partum adjustment.
Abortions performed because of serious maternal health problems, rape, incest or foetal abnormality, account for no more than 2 per cent of all abortions performed in Canada. A full 98 per cent of abortions occur for social or economic convenience.
Government Orders
In a civilized society one does not kill one human being to alleviate the problems of another. Respect for life must remain the cornerstone of our civilization. Once life has begun that life has the God-given right to reach its natural end, and by destroying life the human race is in fact losing honour and dignity. If the suffering of the defenceless does not arouse our compassion, and move us to act on their behalf, nothing ever will.
By destroying other life to ensure one's economic and social success, I believe the human race is losing whatever dignity and honour it has worked to build up for itself over the centuries. To place a utilitarian value on human life, to see each person only in terms of his economic worth can and will lead to the destruction of human life. It will lead to the murder of those already born who through mental and physical incapacity are not able to contribute to society what may be demanded of them by extremists. In some disagreements and arguments that have taken place between pro-lifers and pro-abortionists, the focal point has been the issue of contraception. I said before and I must stress again that proper birth control methods must be readily available to all. Sex education must be taught in a way to make all people understand. Once that is done, people will be able to make the choice concerning the birth of children.
I would like to read into the record a letter that I received from a lady in this area:
I am ashamed to be a woman. I am disheartened by how irresponsible, cold-hearted and extremely selfish we have become. Led by the "women's movement", we have convinced ourselves we are not the loving, caring, nurturing beings we are by nature. We have convinced ourselves that the child in our womb is not a person worthy of respect. Were we all not a foetus in our mother's womb? Are we not the same person we were then?
No matter how bad a woman's situation may be she can survive and help is there for the asking.
Most abortions, however, are done because the pregnancy is an embarrassment or inconvenience. Is nine months really too much to give for the life of another? Is killing your baby better than giving it to a couple who will love her as their own? Give the baby a choice and I am sure she will choose life.
She concludes by saying:
I beg women to find courage to take responsibility for their action and not take the easy way out.
The bill before us, Bill C-43, amounts to nothing more than abortion on demand. There is nothing in that bill that offers any kind of protection to unborn children. It is important that Bill C-43 be given short shrift in the

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
House of Commons by unequivocally and overwhelmingly defeating it.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address an issue that has a long and sordid past in the history of our nation. The abortion issue evokes the greatest emotion in people at the very mention of the word. I have seen for some time now that all people, young and old, have an opinion on this issue, whether it stems from the religious, socio-economic or educational backgrounds or from personal experience.
My opinion stems from a fundamental respect for the sanctity of human life, human life which I believe begins at conception. This is not only what I believe. It is a belief that is held by the majority of the constituents in my riding of Hillsborough, constituents who have written to me over the past year and with whom I have spoken many times. These people have expressed a great concern with the developments that have occurred in the abortion arena over the past year and a half.
Since January, 1988, we have seen a virtual saga of events unfold as a consequence of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Morgentaler case. The Supreme Court ruled that the old abortion law did not comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A year later we saw Mr. Borowski's attempt to have foetal rights defined denied by the Supreme Court of Canada since the Morgentaler decision left the nation without an abortion law upon which they could base a decision.
This was, as many people said, an open invitation to Parliament to deal with this issue. The government, however, did not respond despite calls for a new law from around the country. The Daigle and Dodd cases which we witnessed this past summer demonstrated just how serious an issue this has become. Cases such as this also help to shape our opinion as a nation on this fundamental, social and ethical question.
It is through the unravelling of such events that the federal government has been given an opportunity to introduce abortion legislation so that we can break free from the chaotic state of lawlessness which extends from coast to coast. This situation disturbs millions of Canadians who have written to their members of Parliament asking that Parliament enact legislation to protect the rights of the foetus from the moment of conception. The
government has ignored the feeling that seems to prevail across the country.
The legislation at hand fails to define the rights of the foetus, thus the unacceptable nature of this legislation.
In July, 1988, members of this House were given the opportunity to participate in a multiple choice vote so that government could sense the mood of the House. It was thought that the results of such votes would be taken into consideration when abortion legislation was drafted. Of the five motions voted on at that time, the one that received the most votes was the most pro life and did not call for abortion on demand. The government chose not to introduce legislation to this effect and, instead, allowed the state of lawlessness resulting from the Morgentaler decision to prevail.
The next stumbling block proved to be Mr. Borowski's case. The government did not want to introduce legislation until the Supreme Court made its ruling on this issue of foetal rights. The climax of the ensuing state of lawlessness came with the Daigle and Dodd court cases of the past summer. The anticlimactic end of this saga came on November 3 when the government finally tabled its long-awaited legislation, legislation that I feel does not adequately address the problem at hand.
We have been presented with legislation which is, in effect, a compromise between two opposing forces, legislation which virtually changes nothing and pleases no one. The difference between this bill and the old law is simple. The federal government is now advocating abortion on demand; subject, of course, to the arbitrary decision of a medical doctor regarding its effect on a woman's mental, physical or psychological health. Gone are the days when a therapeutic abortion committee could objectively interpret a need for an abortion.
Abortion is a crime, an act that injures another human being at its most vulnerable stage in development. It is the intentional destruction of a human life, life that begins at the moment of conception with the fusion of the ovum and the sperm. At this time, the first cell of a distinct human being is formed and the colour of the child's eyes and the child's hair is determined. Cell division takes place within hours after conception. A heart beat is present at 25 days and the cerebral cortex at 33 days. Forty-five days after conception, the child's body is complete. At this point, the pregnant woman is
November 22, 1989

carrying a distinct human being, with arms, legs, fingers and toes which are visible by ultrasound.
Two months after conception, organs and body systems are in place. At this point, many women may not even be aware of the miracle which is taking place. At 12 weeks the movement of muscles and nerves are synchronized so that the arms and legs can move and the child is also sensitive to touch, heat, sound and pain.
It is difficult to believe that it takes only 12 weeks for a human foetus to reach such a level of development. At this time all of the body functions and parts that children will develop as they grow are present. When we learn that human development has such distinct stages, it is alarming to hear that 87.8 per cent of all abortions performed in 1986 were completed before the thirteenth week of pregnancy. The common belief is that a foetus is not viable until it reaches 20 weeks, but when its development is broken down in such a manner, one sees that this is not the case.
Such information is used in order to appease the sentiments of those who justify the act of performing an abortion before the foetus is viable. The survival of the foetus is threatened if full development is not reached. Abortion is an act that affects not only the life of the mother, but the life that the mother has created in union with the child's father.
What, may I ask, could be more tragic than to allow a human being with the capability of feeling pain and hearing the human voice and that has all of the body parts intrinsic to life outside of the womb to be terminated at will by abortion.
All abortions must be criminalized. Our criminal law is a reflection of who we are as a society. It defines the interests of our society that are worthy of protection and respect against those that are not. Laws which dictate such policy mirror our societal beliefs and values. I believe as Canadians we must demonstrate a fundamental respect for human life. As a result, I believe all abortions should be banned in Canada.
Government Orders
I realize that a statement of this magnitude will draw objections from various groups of people. There are those who will immediately respond with objections regarding health risks imposed upon a woman if she is forced to carry a foetus to full term. Is this a feasible objection given the medical and technological breakthroughs that we have witnessed in recent years? If health risks do present a problem, is it not part of a doctor's responsibility as a medical practitioner to make every conceivable attempt to save both of the lives that may be at stake?
We must also examine this from the perspective of those who advocate freedom of choice by making use of the argument that unwanted pregnancies pose a threat to a women's freedom. Indeed, an unwanted pregnancy does restrict the activities of a woman who is a member of the workforce. I am a strong supporter of equality, but I do not agree with those who feel that pregnancy discriminates against women and the equality for which they have striven to achieve over the years. I ask them, does equality mean taking another human life so that they may maintain their present status in society? I do not think so.
Abortion is certainly the problem at hand but as someone who opposes this criminal act, I believe it is the role of parliamentarians to examine the root of this problem and propose viable alternatives. The legislation that we have before us is not part of such viable solutions.
It is not a demonstration of our nation's fundamental respect for human life, but one that confirms the individualistic values which our society has adopted in recent decades. Most people today are merely concerned with the pursuit of their own self-interest without considering the effect their decisions will have on others. Freedom of choice does not necessarily mean a freedom to choose because of religious or legal reasons, but a freedom to make choices without considering the life that they have created and is growing inside them each day. This life is destroyed in many cases merely for reasons of convenience.
The underlying problem in this debate is that of unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancy is a fundamental problem in our society and abortion is not the cure for it. Canadians must act together to change society's attitudes toward unwanted pregnancies. As

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
parliamentarians we can get the ball rolling by examining the cause of such problems, one of which is the erosion of the family unit coupled with an increase in abortions and a decreasing birth rate. We must put an end to the dehumanization of the relationship between a mother and her unborn child by attempting to recondition society's attitudes in this respect. We should be enacting legislation that will raise public consciousness and attempts to put an end to the dangerous attitudes and habits we have developed in western society.
Most important, we must also implement educational programs for our children so that they may develop respect for the greatest gift of all, that of human life.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, in rising to address the subject of reproductive choice I would like to put the issue into the context of tolerance.
m
Many feel that wider access to abortion is the solution to the myriad of problems that a woman must face upon learning of her pregnancy. Indeed, the pregnant woman faces the challenge of dealing with psychological problems of both an economic and social nature. Society must be given the opportunity to provide economic and emotional support through the extension of existing counselling services and through the provision of more homes for unwed mothers. It is in the absence of adequate facilities such as these that women come to view abortion as the only viable alternative to their unwanted pregnancy.
We must enact social programs in order to combat the anti-family, anti-life attitudes that are prevalent in today's society. This legislation does not even mention provisions for the examination of such possibilities. It does not implement procedures that will encourage life. Instead, it makes it easier to put an end to life, a procedure that is becoming easier through the development of such drugs as RU 486 which makes abortion as simple as swallowing a pill during the first trimester of pregnancy.
All levels of society must work together in order to promote life and motherhood through education, support programs, housing for unwed mothers and improved day care and maternity benefits for those women in the workforce. It is with such considerations in mind that I cannot support legislation that will effectively grant abortion on demand. I do, however, want to see this bill proceed to a legislative committee where amendments may be proposed and hopefully accepted. As Parliamentarians we must take the opportunity that we have been afforded and examine this pressing issue that poses a threat to the very fabric of our society. We must explore alternatives and options for the pregnant woman.
Canadian society has long recognized the importance of us understanding each other's points of view, recognizing that there is room for differing points of view, that there is room for debate and discussion on important issues and, in particular, that it is important to be tolerant of our differences.
In this there is the recognition that we, as Canadians, support and respect others in their differences. This is the approach the vast majority of Canadians take with regard to most issues, including reproductive choice. Regardless of their personal view on the abortion question, the majority of Canadians feel it more appropriate to support women and the decisions they make rather than to force them, through criminal law sanctions, to follow a particular route. This tolerance is something we, as Canadians, should be proud of and should encourage. The intolerance of others who would have women subjected to their values is reprehensible. There should be room for dialogue and discussion, but not for coercion.
The Supreme Court of Canada agrees. Chief Justice Dickson words said: "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 on security of the person".
I want to take a moment to state my position clearly. Women must have the right to make decisions affecting their bodies after consulting with whomever they wish. The state should not dictate decisions over this issue. As this bill contravenes that basic notion that women should have the right to control their own bodies, it must be rejected. The Supreme Court has also clearly stated that Canadian law does not confer the right to life on the part


November 22, 1989

of the foetus, and neither does it provide putative fathers with any rights over that foetus.
Consequently, the tragic circumstances of the past summer involving Ms. Daigle and Ms. Dodd have been addressed and no legislation is required to deal with that matter. Since the Criminal Code provisions were rendered unconstitutional there has not been any increase in abortions in Canada. The proposed legislation is unfair to doctors, unfair to women, and we do not need it.
I want to say a few words about the federal government's responsibility to show national leadership through the Canada Health Act. We have heard from ministers on the other side that they feel the criminal law power is the only way to approach this issue. The Minister of Justice, for example, stated:"Only by using the criminal law power can the federal government ensure a national approach to the issues of entitlement to abortion". He also said, "The bill does as much as it can to ensure that lawful abortions are possible in all areas of the country, including remote and rural areas".
This is clearly false and clearly misleading. What the government is really saying here is that it does not want to bring forward a comprehensive, all-encompassing national policy on reproductive health. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said as much. The legislation does not deal with access at all. There is nothing here or in anything the government is proposing or plans to propose to ensure that a woman who seeks an abortion has equal access to the procedure no matter where she may live in Canada.
Without the quite legitimate use of the federal spending power and federal leadership, spurred on, I might say, by the great ideals of Tommy Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd and Allan Blakeney in my own province, and by New Democrats across the country, we would not have a national health care program.
For this government to say that the Canada Health Act cannot be used to address the question of accessibility is pure hypocrisy. In 1984 direction was given to the provinces regarding the nature of health care delivery. As a result, extra billing and user fees were ended, and a good thing too.
The Conservatives, then in opposition, voted for this proposal but now they want to take a hands-off ap-
Govemment Orders
proach. For once they should come clean with Canadians. They were prepared to talk about using the federal spending power to introduce a child care program, albeit an undesirable one, prior to the 1988 election. They broke their promise to Canadians then and they are reneging on their obligations now. The federal government has a clear role of national leadership in Canada's health care system and it is failing Canadians once again.
I do not have the time here to deal with the specifics of this argument, but the 1984 Canada Health Act provisions dealing with extra billing and user fees refutes the government's arguments about its inability to act through the Canada Health Act. Public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility are the stated pillars of medicare. It is the federal government's responsibility to enforce these criteria.
So the Conservative government has reneged on this leadership role in dealing with Canada's health care system. This is unacceptable for Canadians generally with regard to health care and unacceptable for women with regard to abortion.
If you add to this the attacks in the Wilson budgets of 1986 and 1989, and now further threats on the part of the Minister of Health to attack transfer payments to the provinces for health care even more, it makes it clear that this government is reducing the federal government's commitment to health care in a very serious and major way.
Canadians will not forget this. What Canada needs is federal policy which sustains and supports women and families. It also needs a full-fledged strategy dealing with all aspects of reproductive health. We need to have federal leadership in the area of family planning, in the area of research into safe, effective contraception, and in the area of workplace flexibility so women have the opportunity to fulfil their major role in looking after children.
We need federal leadership in dealing with environmental and workplace reproductive health hazards. We need federal leadership in dealing with reproductive health promotion, and particularly we need federal leadership in dealing with the elimination of poverty which makes abortion an option for women in the most unfortunate circumstances. We also need federal leader-

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
ship in dealing with sexual assault prevention and we need federal leadership in access to abortion services.
Prevention is the cure for unwanted pregnancies but this requires both more effective contraception and education in sexual matters. Since the government is doing neither of these things effectively, indeed over the years it is reducing its commitment in these areas, its commitment to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in Canada and its commitment to the health of Canadian women must be questioned.
In relating my comments specifically to the bill at hand, Bill C-43 would recriminalize abortion and that is reason enough to be opposed to it. The bill threatens doctors with jail for performing abortions except in cases where vaguely defined health criteria are met. In certain aspects it threatens women with jail. The government takes no clear position on abortion in this bill. It first bans abortion and at the same time provides that if a woman can persuade a doctor that her health will be affected in terms of physical, mental or psychological health, the doctor may then perform the abortion requested.
Criminalizing abortion is not the answer. If the purpose of the government is to reduce the number of abortions, it clearly will fail with this legislation. If the government intended to increase the suffering of women and risk their health, then it succeeded. The bill also may very well be unconstitutional. For all these reasons, and in particular for not permitting women to make their own decisions over their own bodies, this bill must be defeated.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a very sensitive and difficult issue which has moral, ethical, religious, and often very personal meanings for every Canadian. I am referring, of course, to the issue of abortion.
The new legislation recognizes that abortion is a medical decision to be arrived at by a woman and her medical practitioner based on health grounds. Three principles guide the new legislation: one, balancing the woman's constitutional rights with society's interest in the foetus; two, ensuring that fair and reasonable access to abortion is not denied; three, ensuring that all abortions are performed by qualified medical practitioners based on health grounds.
The bill before the House is reasonable. It provides for the legal entitlement to abortion by the following means: the bill proposes to eliminate administrative impediments found in the old law and struck down in Morgental-er and a woman seeking an abortion is required to secure the opinion of a single medical practitioner stating that the continuation of pregnancy would likely be a threat to life or to health. General health grounds for permitting an abortion have been identified by the medical profession and by the courts as including mental, physical and psychological health.
The bill also requires that a medical practitioner's assessment as to the threats to life or health be rooted in generally accepted standards of the medical profession, and the new bill provides definitions as to the meaning of "health", "medical practitioner", "medical opinion" and "inducing abortion".
The proposed legislation comes under the Criminal Code because it is only through the power of the criminal law that Parliament can legislate entitlement to abortion on a national basis. I truly deplore the fact that the legislative measures that we are proposing involve the Criminal Code. But, as we have said on many occasions in this House, this is the only way to proceed at the national level if we want to enable Canadian women, in any province all across the country, to have the right to the services of this medical procedure.
I firmly believe Parliament should legislate with respect to abortion and that is why I am speaking today. I do firmly believe that the decision to have an abortion is a medical decision that rests with the woman, her physician, and her God; her beliefs, her morals, her standards. And yes, all abortions should be and must be performed by a licensed physician for it is a recognized medical procedure.
I support the Canadian Medical Association which is opposed to abortion being legislated under the Criminal Code or other federal laws. The physician will have the responsibility of making the medical decision on whether a continuation of the pregnancy would, or is likely to, threaten the life or the physical, mental or psychological health of the patient. The physician will have to make a decision on an individual basis according to accepted standards of medical practice. Could the physician be charged? Practically never, except, of course, under extreme circumstances. And the Supreme Court judgment made public last week to all intents and purposes
November 22, 1989

rules out third-party intervention. The unanimous ruling removed the legal basis for obtaining court injunctions to block abortions anywhere in Canada.
For most women the decision to have an abortion is one of the most difficult decisions they will ever have to make. It has implications for the woman, for the family and for all people, because most of us really hold deeply religious views. The decision requires careful thought and analysis.
Counselling is extremely important and I believe all women deserve to be informed, to be informed about the effects of an abortion and, more important, to be informed of all the means available to carry the pregnancy to term. However, once a woman decides to have the medical procedure, the abortion, it is her decision. Family life education is really truly necessary in the school curriculum right across the country. Young people must be taught about the values of life, of love, of sexual relations, responsibility, and understanding. I recognize that family life education is under provincial jurisdiction but surely today we can pledge time to teach our children and all people the responsibility of the human body, the responsibility of pregnancy, the responsibility of life.
Legislation is absolutely necessary and Canadians are demanding it. We can all do without the shocking display, the horror we all witnessed last summer and, of course, I am referring to the Daigle-Tremblay and the Dodd cases.
In a perfect world abortion would not be necessary. We all know, however, that the world is not perfect and that abortions are sometimes necessary. For this reason we must face the issue of abortion as best we can as individuals, as Members of Parliament and as a government. We must try to come up with a reasonable solution to this very sensitive and difficult issue.
I do not claim that Bill C-43 is perfect. I do want to say that we must rise above that which might divide us and seek common ground that is acceptable to the majority. Our most dependable guideposts are tolerance, understanding and maturity. I believe women, in consultation with their physicians, have the right to an abortion. It is
Government Orders
imperative that every Canadian woman, wherever she resides, be entitled to these medical services.
I will support this bill in order to get it into the legislative committee where we can have serious consideration, deep thought and where perhaps there will be some amendments for improvement. This is the reason that I support the bill.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my comments on second reading of Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion.
Approximately two years have passed since the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the previous law on abortion as unconstitutional. The recent tabling of the legislation by the Minister of Justice shows serious neglect in waiting so long to bring forth this bill. During this period, 100,000 abortions have been performed in Canada.
There is no doubt that this issue is creating controversy since the proposed law straddles both sides of the issue. While it criminalizes abortion, it also permits a woman to terminate her pregnancy on the advice of a doctor. We are faced with a very sensitive moral dilemma. Indeed, I would like to quote from the speech of the right hon. member from Vancouver Quadra wherein he stated the following: "Speaking frankly, we will never reach a consensus on this issue in the House of Commons or in the country. We can reach only an accommodation at best."
I fully agree and I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the House share the same view. The right hon. member from Vancouver Quadra went on to say: "What happens if this legislation is defeated? First, of all, we are back to no law, so we are back to abortion on demand as we have now. If those who hold a strong pro-life position and want to defeat this law, and are successful, we are back to abortion on demand." We would be the only country in the world which does not have any regulation pertaining to abortion.
I am prepared to see this bill go through second reading and to a legislative committee. This would permit pro-life and pro-choice representatives and the medical profession to present their arguments and share with us their concerns.

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
I would like to take this time to point out some of the flaws in the legislation. This new bill places the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the doctor whose final decision will be based on the generally accepted standards of the medical profession. However, there is no guarantee that all physicians in Canada would apply the same standards and criteria in assessing the health of a pregnant woman.
What if a doctor runs his practice like a business? Also there is no guarantee that a physician's moral and religious values will not influence his assessment of the need for an abortion. In my view, this places a very heavy burden on the medical profession. First, the doctor has the ultimate responsibility of the decision. Second, there is nothing to prevent the father of the child from challenging the doctor's decision and ultimately pressing charges of malpractice.
The bill does not address the issue of foetal rights. The government has chosen to exclude a time restriction which would ban abortion after a certain period in the pregnancy. I am deeply concerned with Madam Justice Wilson's comment concerning the permissible timing of abortion. She said: "The precise point in the development of the foetus, at which the state's interest in its protection becomes compelling, I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature, which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all the relevant disciplines. It seems to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester".
In my view this statement is irresponsible and inhuman. At six months, premature babies are able to survive due to modern medical technology. I would never agree to an amendment which allows an abortion at such a late stage. It would be a most brutal attack on the weakest of human beings, the foetus, which is at the mercy of circumstances.
It is also unfortunate that the bill was not accompanied by counselling, programs addressing these issues would have provided alternatives to those who seek abortion as the solution for an unplanned pregnancy. To quote the Minister of Health: "There are 150,000 young, single, low-income parents in need of assistance. If we take away the economic reasons for abortion, we would ensure that children are brought into the world and properly cared for".
This statement is further supported by the Council of Bishops of Canada and I quote its president: "Moreover, we reaffirm that a new abortion law must be developed in the context of other policies and programs which address the social and economic conditions which contribute to abortion". What is being said is, let us not put a patch on the problem, let us try and minimize this last resort. I must reiterate again, let us have programs that will provide the people of this country with some alternatives.
I can only hope that a Conservative government will see its way clear on this matter and will institute programs which will give the woman an option and therefore give the right to life to the unborn child and the opportunity to reach his or her full potential. There is absolutely no reason in a country as rich as ours that some children are denied.


Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I rise in the House today to speak on the abortion legislation. I hope that everyone would agree with me when I state that there should never be a need for an abortion, that an abortion should never take place, because ideally, an abortion should never be required. Unfortunately, that is not the reality of the situation. We must accept the fact that we do not live in a perfect world. Regardless of our position on this most personal issue, we must resolve this situation to the best of our abilities within the framework society has laid down.
I believe there are two fundamental realities that must be addressed before we review the legislation itself at this stage of debate.
First, a bill must pass the test of Parliament. It must be designed and worded in such a way as to reflect and gain the support of the majority of parliamentarians. Without such consensus any law cannot be enacted or implemented. Second, a bill must be able to stand the test of the Charter of Rights. It must reflect the views of society without infringing on the rights and freedoms of individuals as outlined in the Charter. It must be deemed constitutional and therefore stand up under a challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada.
This government has shown strong leadership in drafting a bill that encompasses these democratic requirements. Although for many of us on both sides of this issue the legislation does not reflect our personal convictions, it is still a valid piece of legislation that warrants our discussion and our thoughts. As legislators and also
November 22, 1989

residents of this democratic society our personal views must often be tempered by the restraints inherent in this institution.
Yes, we can all take individual stands based on our sentiment and emotion and personal beliefs, but without consensus we will not accomplish anything except going back to square one without any valid legislation. Or we can reach a majority agreement, through compromise, that reflects both our individual beliefs and yet supports the legislation that best demonstrates the consensus in this country.
Concessions, no matter how unpalatable, may be necessary from all parties if effective leadership and direction is to be shown by the members of this Elouse to the country. Any law dealing with abortion must protect the sanctity of life. It must recognize not only the rights of the living, but also of the unborn. In other words, in dealing with and recognizing the rights of the woman we must also acknowledge society's responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision on December 28, 1988, indicated that any federal policy or law on abortion should not deny Canadian women fair and reasonable access to abortion, should protect the constitutional rights of women to security of the person, should reflect, as a valid federal objective, the state's interest in the foetus and should protect the health of the woman at all stages.
As a result, this new legislation attempts to balance women's constitutional rights and society's interest in protecting the foetus, it ensures that fair and reasonable access to abortion is not denied and it ensures that any abortions are performed by qualified medical practitioners based on the physical, mental or psychological health of the woman.
A woman seeking an abortion under this legislation is now required to seek the opinion of her medical practitioner. The physician's decision to proceed with an abortion based on generally accepted standards of the medical profession must show that the continuation of the pregnancy would likely threaten her health or her life.
This recognizes that life begins at conception. I believe this legislation reflects society's interest in protecting the foetus, and yet at the same time it also recognizes the rights of women to maintain positive health. The term
Government Orders
"positive health", as defined by the World Health Organization and adopted by our Ministry of National Health and Welfare, means: "a state of complete, physical, mental and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". This also clearly reinforces the woman's constitutional rights to security of the person.
The woman, like the medical practitioner, must follow the legal requirements as stipulated in Bill C-43 which balances her rights with those of the foetus. Therefore, any woman performing a self-induced abortion or who obtains one outside of the medical profession will be committing an illegal act punishable by prosecution under the Criminal Code.
The potential threats facing doctors under the proposed law in my opinion have been greatly exaggerated. The police will not lay charges without valid evidence, and Crown officials will withdraw charges if they are frivolous. It is entirely possible however that, yes, some will try to abuse the law. But we must have faith that the vast majority of doctors in this country will respect the intention of this law. The inclusion of the abortion provisions into the criminal Code is welcome because as was said by law reform commissioner Joseph Maingot:
The criminal law is our nation's fundamental statement of public policy-Ultimately, the criminal law is a mirror of what we are; it reflects our commitment, or lack of commitment, to human dignity and equality.
There are a number of critics who believe an abortion law is not necessary. I, however, disagree. The situation we found ourselves in last summer and the associated publicity as a result of the Supreme Court decision refutes that argument. A situation was created where the Supreme Court was forced to work in a vacuum, attempting to make a decision based strictly on its legal perspective and not that of society. It is our job as legislators to draft and implement legislation that is based on society's perspective.
There are those who have suggested that education and information regarding proper methods of birth control and research at the scientific level should be improved. This is something that I feel should and could be endorsed by the federal government through the Canada Health Act and would go a long way to assist society as a whole. This is an area that should be explored at the committee or report stage and could form part of the regulations and then be administered

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
through the Health Services and Promotion Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Once the legislation becomes law, if the Supreme Court of Canada cannot resolve cases before it to the satisfaction of the government, then perhaps at that time further amendments, if required, could be introduced to rectify the problems that it encounters.
However, I sincerely feel that the legislation is clear and concise enough for the courts to make clear judgments without any hesitation and without prejudice.
I personally do not believe the present legislation is strong enough to satisfy my pro-life views. However, the present legal void that we find ourselves in is totally unacceptable. We must reach a consensus before more lives are lost.
I am also terrified of the prospect of returning to the bad old days. We must not turn back the clock to a time when women's lives were threatened because they could not obtain a legal abortion. This once prevalent occurrence should be avoided at all costs.
I would support an amendment to this bill to protect the life of the unborn except where the continuation of a pregnancy would or would be likely to endanger the life of the female person. The rationale of such an amendment is that the unborn constitutes human life and that the only possible ground for ending this life is self defence.
Therefore it is my opinion that the present act will require amending in order to afford full legal protection to this life. I personally would have liked the legislation to be more restrictive. The term "health" could have been more narrowly defined.
I anticipate the opportunity to speak in support of this type of restrictive amendment to Bill C-43 at third reading. Therefore, given the democratic rules of this House, and by that I mean that amendments cannot be made until after second reading, I do at this time support the legislation even though it does not reflect my personal convictions because I know in due course I will be given the opportunity to persuasively present amendments.


Mac Harb: I would like to take this opportunity to express my views on this very important matter.

I would first of all like to thank the hundreds of people in my riding of Ottawa Centre and throughout the country who gave me their opinion on this issue. Their letters and calls show deep convictions about the right to life and their feeling that the government must protect it. I am pleased that we can finally debate this complex and difficult issue and grant the wish of Canadians who have asked us to find a solution and bring forward legislation to fill the legal vacuum in which we now find ourselves.
I know, Madam Speaker, that the bill before this House was only tabled after long hours of hard work and painfully personal decisions. Although I am aware of the effort required to draft it, I am afraid that it ignores some basic problems raised in the abortion debate.

I had hoped the new abortion legislation would take a broader look at the social and economic factors that play such a large role in the abortion dilemma. Last year, for example, 65,000 women in Canada made the difficult decision to proceed with abortions. Why does a woman decide to have an abortion? The answers to that question are varied and complex, but I think it is fair to say that many abortions that take place in Canada every year might not have happened if the proper education and support systems had been in place.
Canada is a country renowned for its compassion. Our peace keeping efforts and our diplomatic initiatives have saved countless lives around the world. Our social programs have come to the aid of the disadvantaged and underprivileged within our borders. We must ensure this compassion reaches out equally to the unborn and his mother. We must take this compassion and the intense energy that has been focused on the abortion debate and develop a productive, preventive plan of action.
As a government we must take the challenge to prevent the attitude and situations that are now resulting in abortions. There is no doubt that unplanned and

November 22, 1989

Government Orders
unwanted pregnancies have been found to be an exceedingly difficult dilemma for a pregnant woman.
It may be the most devastating event in her life. What is happening is that many women take this step because they feel that they have no alternative-they are desperate and they have nowhere to go. It is our job as a society and as a government to provide that alternative. We must work to change the attitudes and situations which lead to abortion. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that our citizens have the income, the child care and the emotional support to effectively care for a child.
Educational institutions and health care agencies must share the family doctor's responsibility for providing advice and information on family planning. We need to look at the extent of funding and support being given to family planning services.
Are Canadian women being given all the facts? Are adequate services and support networks in place? If they are, are they accessible?
Counselling and family support services must be readily available and accessible to all Canadians in all walks of life. Each one of us in this House, as well as Canadians across the country, have different views on issues such as abortion and capital punishment. It is my belief that there is not a consensus on this issue, and that there will be no consensus.
Canadians, if they are given the opportunity to vote on this issue, would vote on the basis of their convictions, their beliefs, their upbringing, their education, and the values they hold. I know that in my riding, as well as across Canada, there are those who support the legislation and those who are opposed to it.
For me, while I understand there is no consensus on this issue, it is my responsibility to vote on this matter according to my conscience. During the last election and ever since I have stated publicly that I would be in support of legislation that protects the right of the unborn. Since this legislation does not seem to fulfil this commitment, I find myself compelled to vote against it.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address the House today on this most important issue. It is an issue which is of concern to all Canadians, but most specifically it concerns Canadian women.
Abortion is being perceived as an issue which divides Canadians. It should not be. We must as a nation show respect for individual decision-making in matters of fundamental personal importance. We must also seek to balance the vital interests of both the mother and the child by permitting an abortion only when the life or the physical, mental or psychological health of the mother is threatened.
As women struggle to develop their place in this modem and constantly evolving society, they are struggling to eliminate discrimination and to develop a set of legislative reforms which ensures this. Women's needs are being translated into protected rights. The right to reproduce or not to reproduce is a right which women recognize as fundamental to their dignity. Therefore, when formulating our legislation, we must listen to what women are saying and we must formulate legislation which will best serve the universal requirements of Canadian women.
The decision to proceed with an abortion is probably one of the most difficult any woman will be called upon to make. It is a decision which will have lasting ramifications on her life. The factors determining the decision are the result of previous life experiences, personal conscience and personal moral values. No two women will experience life in the same way. That is why a woman must enjoy the democratic rights afforded her in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which allow her to arrive at her own decision.
Legislation in this issue of abortion is necessary to prevent further highly publicized and, for the participants, emotionally draining judicial confrontations. In a recent decision members of the Supreme Court unanimously stated:
There is no foetal right to life contained in the vague wording of
Quebec's Charter of Rights nor under the province's Civil code or
the common law that prevails throughout the rest of Canada.
This statement re-emphasizes the fact that matters related to this issue should not be resolved in the courtroom. The courts will uphold the laws that we the legislators put in place. So when proposed legislation is being drafted it is essential to ensure that it reflects the greater public good and that it will withstand legal scrutiny. We must provide for Canadians a law which establishes a uniform national standard.

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
Abortions, when deemed to be necessary, should be accessible in every region and to all female citizens. Location and financial resources should not be factors in such an emotional and a personal decision. I am convinced that Bill C-43 will meet those requirements.
Each year in Canada, about 360,000 children are bom and about 65,000 abortions take place. Over half of these abortions are performed on women under the age of 25.
This debate on abortion, by emphasizing the fact that so many abortions are performed on young women, may produce a positive effect. We know there is an urgent need to better educate our young people on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Our goal must be to reduce the number of abortions by concentrating on education and information accessibility. Counselling services, family planning services and information on contraception must be readily available to all Canadians.
The provision of advice and information on family planning and human sexuality falls to the family physician, but that responsibility must also be shared by the educational institutions and health care agencies.
Frank and open discussion on this issue will help to illuminate the dilemma and hopefully will result in positive advancements which will make abortions unnecessary.
The Canadian Medical Association is pleased that the proposed legislation recognizes that abortion is a medical act. It supports the concept of abortion being decided upon within the doctor-patient relationship. It does have concerns related to the issue of abortion which are also shared by many Canadians. The association is concerned that all patients should be provided with the option of full and immediate counselling services in the event of unwanted pregnancies.
Since the risk of complications of induced abortion are lowest in early pregnancy, early diagnosis of pregnancy and determination of appropriate management should be encouraged. There should be no delay in the provision of abortion services.
However, no patient should be compelled to have a pregnancy terminated. No physician should be compelled to participate in the termination of a pregnancy. 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. No discrimination should be directed against doctors who do not perform or assist at induced abortions.
Abortion services should meet specific standards in the areas of counselling, informed choice, medical and surgical procedures, nursing and follow-up care.
We should look to the areas of research and development in the health care field for advanced methods of contraception. Our goal should be to reduce that number of 65,000 abortions, not by restricting choice but by encouraging greater choice in contraception.
Organizations such as the Planned Parenthood Federation encourage choices by educating, promoting and supporting family planning. This organization recognizes that each community is different and implements programs sensitive to the varying needs of each one.
All children bom into this world have a right to be anticipated with love. That is the hope, I am sure, of all of us in this Chamber. That is their fundamental right. How can we best ensure that this will be? We must utilize all the avenues that have been offered to us, through the knowledge we have gained over time, through our education and life experience, to bring in the fairest legislation possible for all Canadians.
If and when a woman is called upon to make this crucial decision, we must afford her the benefit of her knowledge, education and experience to make the right decision for herself and her child.
I would like to end my speech this evening by referring to remarks made by Justice Bertha Wilson on this issue upon rendering a decision in the Morgentaler case in 1988.
Liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state
to approve the personal decisions made by its citizens; it does,
however, require the state to respect them.
In summation, it seems to me that what Canadian women are asking for is the fundamental right to make a choice which is right for them on an issue which is a deeply personal and private matter. Should guidance be sought, it should be readily available to every woman through our health care services.
November 22, 1989

In a free and democratic society, all members of that society have their rights and their responsibilities. I have no doubt that the women of this country are fully capable of accepting their responsibilities as full and equal partners.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the previous speaker for her remarks, which I think women will appreciate.
I rise today to summarize my opposition to Bill C-43 and to suggest steps that this government can take to lessen the need for abortions.
Recently I received a long and thoughtful letter from an Ontario woman who sent her views on abortion to all MPs. In it she said:
There is nothing that you will ever do in life that will affect your life
as much as becoming a parent, and it is irreversible. You can become
unfat; you can become unemployed; you can become unmarried; you
can even become unordinary; but you can never become unparented.
It is not to be taken lightly or forced on anyone.
I strongly believe that women of Canada must have the personal freedom to choose to be a parent. In this way children will be loved and wanted. Hopefully, a woman and her partner will be able to provide the loving care and opportunities that children need to grow to maturity.
However, many women are not in a position to do this and for a variety of reasons may decide to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. This is a very personal and often a very difficult emotional decision.
If a woman decides on an abortion, access to safe medical procedures must be available to terminate a pregnancy as early as possible.
The Supreme Court decision last week on the Daigle case sends a strong message. Judges agreed that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. There is no basis in law to recognize the foetus as a person.
I will be voting against Bill C-43 because I am strongly opposed to recriminalizing abortion. I do not want the state interfering in a matter that is a very personal and intimate female decision, a reproductive right that should only require consultation between a woman and her doctor.
Government Orders
The medical profession already has health regulations and standards that apply to medical procedure. We do not need criminal sanctions.
Many speakers from my party have explained why we oppose Bill C-43, which 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. This bill reduces access to abortion by threatening doctors with criminal penalties of up to two years in prison unless vaguely defined health criteria are met. It ignores the real issue of unwanted pregnancy. We will see more court actions and third party interventions as a result of the bill.
Access is limited. Many healthy woman, and particularly young girls who my colleagues said are 50 per cent of those seeking abortions for a variety of reasons, may not qualify. They will be forced to lie to a doctor or go to a back-street abortionist.
I am sickened at heart by extremists who are so autocratic that they want state interference to curtail a woman from having an abortion. I feel that those who support criminal sanctions are victimizing pregnant women. Like Chantal Daigle's ex-boyfriend, some want to force women to continue unwanted pregnancies unless there is a health problem.
Doctors also are victimized and scapegoated. They are placed in the role of judge and face a jail term, and as a result may interpret health very narrowly.
Undoubtedly, many poor women will not have access to abortions, and healthy adolescents may not qualify.
This law is degrading, judgmental and intrudes on the rights and privacy of women. Why are women not trusted and respected to make their own decisions, if and when they want to have children? Why do women need to be controlled by a patriarchal society? Why is the focus all on women as if men had no responsibility for pregnancies?
It takes two to achieve an unwanted pregnancy and to cause the need for an abortion. If this law were to be applied equally under the Criminal Code, perhaps we should have an amendment that would require the prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

Government Orders
What are the responsibilities of men to their sexual partners? Should vasectomies be required in law unless a pregnancy is planned by both partners and fathers agree to support their progeny? This would be one way to eliminate abortions.
Of course, we do not want this kind of state interference to require sexually active men to be more responsible to sexual partners. However, too many men ignore the fact that birth control and responsible family planning are a man's responsibility, not just the woman's.
Mutual decisions to have a family result in wanted children. This should be society's goal.
This bill discriminates against women because it deals only with women's role in reproduction. In many ways it does not comply with international agreements to which Canada is a signator. For example, the UN Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women in Article 2(g) requires a "repeal of all the national penal provisions which constitute discrimination against women". We are creating a new provision under Bill C-43.
This convention and the UN Forward Looking Strategies, as well as the UN Population Plan Of Action, all make it clear that family planning must be available to all women. Yet this government continues to contravene these agreements by drastically cutting funds to Planned Parenthood.
If the government wanted to do something about abortion, it could ensure access. It could reinstate the funding for Planned Parenthood that it cut. It could perform research into safe, effective means of contraception. It could put the support services and programs in place that pregnant women and parents need to raise a child.
The only law we need is one to ensure access, not restrict access. This is not a matter for criminal law but for amendments to the Canada Health Act.
Abortion should only be a last resort. Society can do a lot to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Research by Planned Parenthood indicates that the provision of reproductive health services and sex education reduces the rate of teenage pregnancies. Clearly, not enough is being done in this area as research also shows that one in six teenage girls will become pregnant before turning 20.
Although the government self-righteously insists it has raised funding to Planned Parenthood, this is misleading.
Planned Parenthood received $447,000 in 1979, and this was reduced to $139,000 in 1988, a paltry sum for such an essential service. I urge the government to further increase funding for Planned Parenthood and for community groups that provide family education and accessible contraception services.
Sex education in schools should be encouraged. The government should also re-establish a family planning division at Health and Welfare where there is only one full-time staff person.
The federal government must increase funding for research into reliable forms of contraception for men as well as women.
Health problems associated with IUDs and the pill are of great concern to women. Why has the government neglected this research which could prevent abortions in the future?
Although attitudes are changing, and I am very pleased many younger men in our society are sharing the joys and responsibilities of parenting, women still do bear the brunt of child rearing. Whether or not she has a spouse a woman is usually expected to fulfil the demanding task of caring for and raising children as well as working outside the home.
Child maintenance payments continue to be inadequate or nonexistent, and women are left to raise children alone and in poverty. Governments must enforce maintenance payments more effectively and ensure family incomes above the poverty line.
It is a national disgrace that one in five children are poor and that 150,000 kids use food banks each month. After years of studying government promises we still do not have a national child care program. We urgently need -a child care system that is universally accessible, affordable, non-profit, and of high quality. We must also extend parental leave with UI benefits to cover at least 26 weeks. Family policy should be encouraged in the workplace so parents can spend more time with children, with flexible hours and family leave.
In conclusion, I implore all members to spend as much time next year as we have spent this year on this abortion

debate in order to promote policies that will reduce the need for abortion and programs that will support children and provide for their care.


Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House today and make my contribution to the debate on Bill C-43.
Madam Speaker, all Canadians were appalled last summer when they heard about the Chantal Daigle case on radio, television and through the other media.
I do not think anyone would want to go through an experience that must have been quite terrible, to see one's private life dragged through the newspapers and flaunted on television, especially a life as full of controversy and incidents as that particular one. I think we all agree we would not want to repeat that experience.
However, where we do not agree, and I think here our differences are almost irreconcilable, is on how to solve this problem.
I truly believe that the Bill before the House today does not deal with the problem. It would need a number of amendments before it could do so even partially. I would even go so far as to say that whatever we put into the bill, the problem will never be solved.
In fact, the problem is a social one. I feel that any bill that does not recognize this fact will never provide a solution, and quite frankly, it would be no more than an exercise in camouflage that ignores the real problem.
One paragraph of this Bill shows a tendency to criminalize, where it says that a physician who induces an abortion where there is no threat to the mother's health is liable to a maximum of two years' imprisonment.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think putting people in prison is the ideal solution, because it does not deal with the problem. Women will continue to have abortions, despite the restrictions we put into this bill.
So what do we need to tackle the roots of the problem? We need a family policy, supported by a tax policy. It is a fact that, be it unintentionally, our federal and provincial laws do not support the family and even tend to destroy it. Let me explain. As a married man with five children, financially I would be better off abandoning my family, because in that case, I could deduct alimony payments from my income tax. Personally, of
Government Orders
course, I would never do this just to save a few dollars, but there are people out there who might do just that. So as I indicated in my example, and it applies to many other Canadians as well, our laws definitely encourage marital separation and the destruction of the family unit. And that is a sad comment on our society.
I have raised the subject on many occasions, and I intend to go on doing so until something is done about it. What is taking us so long to provide help for needy mothers? I have already talked about wages for women working in the home. Or it could be for a father working in the home, because some fathers stay home to take care of the children, because the mother has died or for whatever reason.
It seems to me that if we tackle the roots of the problem, it would be a lot easier to find a solution that is more humane for all involved. We would not have to take people before the courts, much less put them in prison, because that will never solve the problem. The fact that today, on the threshold of the 21st century, in a civilized country like Canada, we have no solutions at hand to restrict abortion and the destruction of the foetus and of our people and we have found no other solution but to put the doctor in prison, I think shows we are truly lacking in imagination. We will never be able to solve a social problem of this magnitude.
The fact is that no matter what we put into this Bill, a young girl or young woman in dire financial straits, and God knows there are many cases like that, will get an abortion regardless.
I have already suggested that in some cases abortion would be acceptable but only when absolutely necessary, as in cases of rape or incest or when the mother's health is at risk, and when I say her health I mean physical health, not mental or psychological health which, as you know, is very difficult to determine. Today, a woman could go to a doctor, feeling rather desperate. Her doctor would say: "Okay, in that case, since you feel depressed, whether" this is temporary or whatever, I will do an abortion.
Of course any woman who comes to such a decision will not go out and celebrate. If she comes to such a decision, it is because she is really hurt inside and does not know where to turn. We already know that; the doctor does not have to justify it.

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
So we might as well then have abortion on demand, because it comes to the same thing. But in the case that I just described, I see no need for the woman and her doctor to provide any health reason whatever. If the woman's health is threatened, if her physical health is threatened, if she is pregnant following rape or incest, in that case, I see no need for the woman or doctor to produce a medical document showing that her health is threatened. I was prepared to be more liberal than that in such a case and accept abortion on demand, perhaps with a certain time limit, because the bill before us sets no limit. In that case, it is up to the physician. Even if the foetus is eight months old, he can still perform an abortion. Nothing forbids it.
If we were to consider the problem first and attack it at its roots, we would have to change first of all our policies, our tax legislation, to make it less discriminatory or not discriminatory at all, because God knows it is discriminatory. Let us support families, single mothers, even married women, because they can sometimes be in equally difficult situations.
If we did that, Mr. Speaker, I assure you that the abortion problem would be reduced, if not completely, at least to a very large extent. That would be much more effective, instead of providing punitive measures such as sending the doctor or mother or anyone else to prison- that will not solve the problem. In a way, we are acting unconsciously, and for this reason, I ask my colleagues to think a little. I have already pointed out several times here some injustices that affect young people, especially in Quebec, where those who are under 30 get only one third as much welfare as those who are 30 or over. This situation creates juvenile delinquents and repeat offenders whom I would consider victims rather than criminals. We must ask ourselves the question, Mr. Speaker. Since my time is up, I thank you for listening to me.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to remind the House of the deep anguish and soul searching the issue of abortion has created in the Canadian community. As we explore new ways to generate human life, the sincere fears and questions of community groups and individuals grow in intensity. At the same time, we are a nation proud of its steady movement toward a more equal partnership of men and
women and a fuller commitment to the individual rights of all citizens.
For myself, I would like to go on record at this time as a citizen against abortion and seriously concerned for the protection of the human foetus. However, in spite of that deep personal belief, I am committed to serving all of my constituents as their elected representative. I must find, therefore, a more balanced position for my community as a whole.
Few of us could cast a vote for or against abortion and claim that our vote represents a clear majority of our citizens. In this case, it seems to me that to stand in Parliament absolutely for individual rights or absolutely for foetal protection is an heroic act that is all too easy. It fails to provide leadership to our troubled and divided communities.
If ours were an ideal community in which every child bom was guaranteed the love, nurture and social support essential to happiness, if I were confident that every child bom would be valued and protected by our social system, then I could stand here today confidently and say no to any abortion. But, it seems to me, the steady erosion of universal social support by the current government casts a deep shadow on the hopes for such a social climate. So I have no alternative but to search for balance.
The internationally renowned Canadian scholar, Northrop Frye, has written a great deal on the nature of our culture and our unique qualities as a nation. One very distinct image and attitude he describes is our obsession with the two-sided legend. He says we are always conscious of the double ledger and the need to find balance between conflicting values. While we have sometimes been ridiculed for this as being too low key, too middle of the road, we have built our credibility throughout the world on this willing sense of balance. Our successful history is one of compromise. We seek laws, institutions and expectations in which contrary yet mutually essential human needs and values are sustained in some acceptable and even pragmatic manner.
When history and generations of the future call us to account for our actions in this momentous social issue, we will not be judged by our heroic extremes but by our sensible balance of voices and value systems. If there was ever a need for this Canadian consciousness, this awareness of the double ledger, it is in regard to the difficult and cmcial issue of abortion. At moments it may seem to we politicians more a double-edged sword than an opportunity for balance. Yet, I do believe that this
November 22, 1989

learned and sincere parliamentary body can find a way that will enable our society to move forward unafraid of more sophisticated knowledge, technology and challenges to the wonder of human procreation.
Recent landmark cases make clear the two sides of the ledger. On one side is the right to liberty, identified with human dignity and autonomy and the right to make fundamental personal decisions without state interference. On the other side, with as much validity is the public interest in the protection of the unborn. The Supreme Court has noted that there is a point at which the state interest in the protection of the foetus becomes compelling and responsibility for this protection falls to the legislature.
Let me remind this place once more of this additional burden. The most recent Supreme Court decision makes it very clear. It is this House and this House alone that holds "concern for the life of the foetus" in the cradle of its power to legislate.
I hold the current legislation up to the light of Northrop Frye's ledger and I examine its bottom line, as our current government likes to say so often. What angers me today is the lack of leadership and balance in this legislation. Bill C-43 clearly does not balance the beliefs, the fears and the genuine desires of Canadians. It is a mask of compromise rather than a genuine effort to integrate the two legitimate yet conflicting arguments on abortion. It declares abortion illegal in its text and then its qualifiers make abortion available virtually without restriction.
In the letter of the law it claims concern for the foetus and in its spirit it provides no protection for the foetus whatsoever. It unfairly places the full burden of responsibility on medical practitioners. From the mother's point of view, it makes a woman dependent on the idiosyncrasies of local community and provincial power structures.
Whatever balance the government claims it has established, it is an illusion. There is no evidence in this legislation that the public's concern for the welfare of the foetus has been addressed. This public concern which has clearly not been abandoned even by the Supreme Court of Canada, this other side of the ledger which must be balanced with the woman's right to individual choice, has not been given any sort of strength
Government Orders
in this sly piece of legislation. Although the government will claim it is sufficient that abortion remains in the Criminal Code and that this context is enough evidence of concern for the unborn, this too is mere posturing rather than substantial recognition of public concern for the foetus.
The Minister of Justice has stood in this place and said that Bill C-43 creates a criminal offence. Then, soon after, he informed news reporters that the government was not going to prosecute. This is hypocritical legislation. The presence of this new legislation in the Criminal Code in no way provides a reasonable balance of public desire on the issue of abortion. It gives the impression of concern for the foetus without the substance of enforceable law.
I call upon this government to provide legislation that is truly a compromise and that addresses both sides of the ledger clearly and effectively. Even as I call for changes in this legislation, it strikes me how narrow and limited this approach to child birth and the renewal of generations will be.
How can we ask women to carry new life to fruition unless we are prepared to provide the social environment and social vision that value new life clearly and pragmatically? As long as this government continues to cut back on social support systems, to dare tear down the universal social welfare programs, and is more concerned for dollars than for people, women will be uncertain of wearing the mantle of child birth.
Who are we as legislators to speak on the issue of abortion unless we are prepared to take better responsibility for the basics of new life-food, clothing, shelter and child care? Yet this government has put the infamous deficit ahead of these essentials at every turn in its legislative agenda.
Can women really believe that this government cares deeply for the birth of another child? Can we really believe that this government has a commitment to families, to those who most need assistance in raising children? Let us not be foolish enough to believe that this legislation does anything to enhance the quality of life in our community. Let us instead demand that the government stop its obsession with the market-place and

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
its financial ledgers and turn its attention to the far more important ledger of social needs and responsibility.
In closing, I am prepared to take this government at its word only when I see it is practising this concern in its legislation for social support systems. When the government begins to take seriously the cries for child care, the desperate need for more shelter, more clothing, more food, the responsibility to assist the provinces in providing a better quality of life for the poor and the unemployed, then and only then will Canadians believe that this legislation grows out of true concern for the lines of women and children.
As it stands this legislation is an abdication of responsibility. It has failed to balance the public's concern for the unborn child with the need to assure the dignity and rights of women. It is, above all, promulgated by a government whose whole legislative agenda devalues those very universal social programs which guarantee quality of life for all children.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, as introduced by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Our government was faced with finding a solution to a problem that touches the very core of the basic values of Canadian men and women. As with any legislation where personal attitudes and moral convictions are involved, we could expect a lack of consensus within our own society. We can make this a legal debate. We can make this a matter of conscience. We can make this a scientific debate. The fact remains that although it may be difficult to accept, abortion is a reality. We must therefore give it a legislative framework that gives women the right to use their own judgment, that offers women a measure of protection and finally, that is aimed at preventing abuse. It is in this perspective that the legislator tabled this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, I speak first of all as a member of this House and as such, I support the decision of a responsible government to deal with a difficult and emotionally charged situation.
A legal vacuum was created, when the Supreme Court concluded that Section 251 of the Criminal Code was
contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was therefore up to the government to remove this contradiction by introducing legislation adapted to our times. The bill tabled in the House on November 3 is the result of solid thinking and reflects the wisdom of a government that is firm, fair and realistic.
If we look at the theoretical aspect, the legislation may seem inadequate. It is true that the subject is so emotionally charged that it creates controversy and makes discussion very difficult. However, the legislator was able to maintain the clarity and perspective required to consider the practical aspects and make abortion a medical act, subject to the rules of the profession: an act that arises from a decision made by a woman and her physician.
In tabling this bill, the government decided to avoid taking a stand for or against abortion, restricting its involvement to creating an objective framework for the act, which so far remains the best solution.
Second, I speak to you as a woman who, like many others, has acquired a measure of experience both in her personal and professional life.
Like any human being, I debate issues with myself and this helps me shape my opinions. I too have my own values and personal convictions and sometimes I call them into question when faced with realities that must ultimately be accepted.
Over the years, the status of women has evolved steadily in our society. Today we can say that women occupy a respectable place although they still have some obstacles to overcome.
Respect for personal choice is the very foundation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and all legislation must comply with it.
Abortion is not a choice between good and evil. A woman wants an abortion because she is tom inside; she sees it as a solution to a tragic situation.
Abortions, in many cases, result from a lack of external support and a feeling of rejection due to social prejudice. That is why I am convinced that the bill will enable a woman and her doctor to have a healthy dialogue. Together, they will have to decide how to deal with a problem which only they know in detail.
November 22, 1989

I am reassured by this legislation, Mr. Speaker, not only because it respects women's judgment but also because it protects them and is free of prejudice on an issue so closely related to social values.
I myself raised a family of four children. I was able to understand and intensely experience what motherhood and deciding to have a family mean for women. Based on this experience in my own family, I favour a situation and setting where women can develop and grow.
Society has evolved and so have women. Respecting women also means respecting their decisions, including what they do with their own bodies, in consultation with their doctor.
When I look at the past or compare us with the many countries to which my work takes me, countries which Canada helps, I say that Canadian society is doing more all the time for the equality of women in their individual and collective rights.
The bill before us today meets a basic need to respect individuals, to respect women and their decisions.
This respect, Mr. Speaker, must go together with our society's evolution, as women move towards greater autonomy. Will this bill settle everything? I sincerely do not think so. But that is no reason not to do something that will contribute to women's betterment and protect their basic right to decide with their doctors what is best for their physical and mental health.
If women have full rights in our society, legislators must be consistent with this great principle and enact it in legislation. This is just what we are doing today.
Mr. Speaker, as a woman and as a member of this House, I fully support the solution proposed in this bill. I recognize in it the leadership and tolerance which have guided our government throughout its term of office.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone in this House has faced the same problem as I have in dealing with the abortion issue and now, more particularly, with Bill C-43.
As a new member of Parliament, I can safely say that this particular issue has dominated my mail. I must say
Government Orders
that I am pleased the matter is at least before the House so that we can finally deal with it and address the issue.
On a positive note, I think the bill has caused a great deal of hue and cry among the extreme positions on the issue. That, in itself, might be an endorsement for the bill. I believe that people in Canada are looking for an acceptable compromise, a compromise which deals with all sides of the issue and if you have both extremes upset, then maybe that is what this bill achieves, a compromise.
The Dodds and the Daigle cases this past summer have brought the issue home to millions of Canadians. It is an issue which affects everyone. I would hazard a guess that every member in this House knows of someone who has agonized over whether a person wanted or needed to have an abortion. It is an issue which affects all Canadians. Our role as legislators is to find a way to deal with this issue so that the constitutional rights of women are balanced with the rights of the foetus.
The question then becomes: "Does Bill C-43 achieve this objective?"
The bill is a negative bill, which neither protects the rights of the woman nor the rights of the foetus. The bill does not deal with many of the other surrounding issues involving this complex process, for I believe that we cannot just view this issue on the basis of abortion, but we must take a holistic point of view and abortion is really the final end of a very long and involved process.
As the Citizens for Public Justice said: "To introduce a pro-life amendment to the Criminal Code without social policy changes will not adequately protect human life. To give women legal right to abortion without social policy changes means that many women have few effective choices other than abortion. This is not a choice anyone would recommend."
In light of the recent decision in the Supreme Court of Canada, Daigle vs. Tremblay et al the court has found that under existing law the foetus has no rights until bom. I must say, as a lawyer reviewing the case, I can follow the logic of the decision and the conclusion, but I cannot agree with the conclusion in the sense that I feel that we, as legislators, must make the necessary changes and correct the results of the decision that has been reached by the Supreme Court of Canada. For this reason, I

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
would have preferred a degree of foetal protection in this bill. This bill does not provide that protection.
This bill basically is an amendment to the Criminal Code which makes all abortions criminal except in a case where a physician is of the opinion that the woman's physical, mental and psychological health is endangered by the continuance of the pregnancy. In any other circumstance, it is a criminal offence punishable by up to two years, imprisonment for anyone to induce an abortion, including self-inducement.
I must also say that I don't believe that women embark on the decision to have an abortion lightly. As a man I cannot say for sure because I won't have to face that decision, but it must be a hard, gut-wrenching decision, which in most circumstances appears to the woman involved as the only alternative available.
Looking at the bill, one quickly sees that it deals with the issues on a very negative basis and shifts responsibility for the decision. I do have some very grave hesitations with the criminalization of the mother, and I do not feel that the bill should shift that criminalization to the physician. The physician is now faced with a situation where he can make a decision or come to an opinion that an abortion is acceptable treatment and then be subject to prosecution at a later stage.
The provincial Attorney General or a Crown prosecutor may hold certain views which may start that process and leave that physician subject to criminal prosecution. As a lawyer, I would have to say that in most cases I would advise a physician never to do an abortion on the basis of the bill because of the vulnerability that the physician faces. While it would appear in the Supreme Court of Canada decision that third parties do not have any rights to bring actions, there is nothing to stop the criminal process from coming to the fore and for a Crown prosecutor or anyone to lay an information or start that process which is obviously bad for the physician.
The other problem which the physician faces is medical opinion across the country on what will be mental, physical or psychological health difficulties will differ in the different areas of Canada. I believe that the psychological definition is going to be the hardest one to come up with from a medical point of view and that definition
is not provided in the legislation. Therefore, a doctor is left to his own devices to define "psychological", and if he reaches the wrong conclusion could become a criminal.
Also, the bill does not provide equal access to women across the country. In effect, the legislation ducked that issue and put it in the hands of the provinces. Therefore, we will see unequal access to abortion across this country. We have seen that already under the existing law. In New Brunswick, for instance, there are regions within the province that perform abortions in certain hospitals and some that do not. We are going to exacerbate the situation by expanding that across the whole country with this type of legislation.
The Supreme Court of Canada in its decision said that foetal rights only arise once the foetus has been bom. This requires us as legislators to step in and resolve that problem to a degree in favour of the foetus. The Law Reform Commission had recommendations. I know that a lot of groups were opposed to those recomendations but at least it provided a degree of recognition of the rights of women and the rights of the foetus. In my view, in this legislation neither rights have been protected.
The legislation by its negative effect also causes the woman, in effect, to lie. She must go to the physician if she wants an abortion and concoct a story. That is exactly what has happened in the past and that is again a most unreasonable way for us to force women to act.
As I indicated earlier, I believe that we have to look at this issue from a holistic point of view. To bring forward legislation which just deals with abortion and does not deal with the other sides of the issue is a very negative way to proceed.
A classic case that we see in society today is children having children. How do we deal with that situation? An abortion is the last part of that whole process. We have an obligation to look at day care, to look at the opportunities that are presented, to look at family planning and those associated issues, and to deal with things like sex education and contraception when dealing with younger women. The issue is not just one of abortion. All issues such as family, day care, and reproductive technology are involved and should be associated with this particular bill. For us to come forward with legislation which only
November 22, 1989

deals with one aspect is shirking our responsibility as legislators.
My view is that at this particular stage we really do not have any choice but to send this bill to committee, hope for some amendments that will put some of the things that each one of us believe are necessary into the legislation, and hopefully fashion a piece of legislation which does the job rather than leaving it the way it is now. At this particular stage, we must send it to committee. Hopefully we can come up with amendments, but I must say that if the bill comes back in its present form, I would have no choice but to vote against it.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-43, and I hope that my comments will be useful to the legislator and to this country. My presentation will reflect my experience in the practice of psychology. I will deal with three points in the few minutes at my disposal.
First, I will explain my position on the issues and the bill before the House today. Second, I intend to discuss the duality and apparent contradiction between the individual and society. Finally, I will discuss an approach that in my view would make it possible to enforce the legislation with a heightened understanding for the new realities in our society.
Let me say, first of all, that I believe in life. I will not try to determine whether the foetus is a human being, and I will not agonize about the exact moment when the foetus is considered to be a human being.
My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) raised the subject on Wednesday, November 8, at page 5725 in Hansard.
As was said before in the House, the purpose of this bill is to make abortion a medical act. This position is fundamental, and I welcome it. It is based on a definition of health, either mental, physical or psychological, and this definition is set within a social context. Mr. Speaker, the bill recognizes that the living foetus is not just an excrescence or a fibroma but quite definitely something different. I call this foetus a human being.
Government Orders
The Bill acknowledges this as well, since it is based on three guiding principles, the first of which is to balance the constitutional rights of the woman and society's interest in the protection of the foetus.
This principle indicates, in no uncertain terms, that abortion is not solely a private matter. It is also a matter that affects society and the public interest and hence it is a matter of ethics, whether social or religious or both.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) raised this question in the House and gave us an excellent answer. It seems almost impossible to dissociate social ethics from religious ethics. It is not any easier to dissociate the human spirit from its physiological counterpart.
Both Hippocrates and the philosophers acknowledged this fact. The modem scientist is no exception. The laws of nature, when they apply, always do so in a tangible, material world. Our laws are implicit in the matter that surrounds us. This is an accepted fact in both psychology and management.
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada said, and I quote:
In a perfect world, abortion would not be necessary for any
reason. We all know, however, that the world is not perfect.
We are human beings. We are finite beings, limited by our physiological and neurological equipment, and obviously will be for a number of centuries to come. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said there were few, if any, moral issues on which people agreed. He added that abortion was a disturbing issue for each and everyone of us because it seemed to force us to chose between two essential human values.
Mr. Speaker, no man is an island. He lives in an environment and belongs to a group. Therefore, he cannot make laws to please himself. That is why it is up to the legislator, with all his perfections and imperfections, to identify and implement standards. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I don't think this legislation is intended to let everyone do as they please or that it is a lawyer's paradise or that it puts the onus on the physician. In my view, people who say this are avoiding the issue.
Mr. Speaker, I now come to my second point. This bill merely recognizes two realities which exist whether we like it or not.

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
First, we have a woman. Second, this woman is carrying a foetus, a new being; she is no longer alone with her body. For this reason, she must deal with another reality called society.
In fact, two human beings form the basis of society. At the very least, they often provide all the elements needed to form a society, whether it is a cell, a group, a family.
We all know that living in a group or society raises many problems. Where does the freedon of one person begin and end and conversely where does the freedon of another person begin and end? Social psychology and the question it raises shed some light on this for us. Many say that this bill is aiming for a compromise. I do not think so. As I see it, the bill sets a standard for an inherent human problem: individual versus collective rights. In other words, the bill sets parameters so that two separate but interconnected entities can function and develop as harmoniously as possible. The individual depends on the richness of the group in order to stand out and find a way to excel.
Just as man influences his environment, it shapes his behaviour as much as it does his opinions, beliefs, attitudes and especially values. But if a society is to continue to envolve, individuals must be able to continue to assimilate its basic values.
Therefore the human being is always guided by an individual and collective vector, and his behavioural patterns are inspired by social prescriptions which themselves are tinted by factors of levelling and individualization.
It is in that sense that the feeling of belonging takes a connotation of development. Apparent dissonances such as group/individual, security/accomplishment, and level-ling/individualization convey a message to the extent that one accepts that an individual alone cannot develop fully enough, or at least to the degree that his potential can be actualized.
What may seem to be theoretical, philosophical and useless in this debate, Mr. Speaker, is not really so because this problem underlies human, social and even moral values.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I am satisfied with this bill, even though we may always encounter vile men, weaker women and physicians without strong conscience.
Even so, it is up to the institutions to step in and steer them back towards justice and equity, while keeping in mind both the individual and the group to which he belongs and from which he seeks guidance to sustain his own legitimacy and sense of belonging.
Mr. Speaker, I said that one cannot be independent without first having been dependent, and that the more independent one is the more one has to acknowledge one's dependence on others. I am no exception.
In the riding of Outremont which I am honoured to represent in this House, I have the privilege of listening to a wide range of opinions, and I can say that we find there the normal array of different positions. I must keep that in mind. If the citizens of the riding of Outremont have that right, it logically follows that their right becomes my duty.
One last point before I conclude. A little over a year ago I said to a journalist who asked me where I stood with respect to the abortion issue that I was pro-life. I went on to say, and I quote the newspaper article: "If we want a society to develop, that takes individuals. We must plant our own maple trees and see that they reproduce".
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that since the bill deals with a medical act and opinion and since neither the doctor nor the woman has all the relevant scientific information, it would be worthwhile for them to get the support and advice of professionals who could show them how to make the best decision.
And moral and religious convictions will finalize this process. Mr. Speaker, I am pro-life but I also recognize life in society requires flexibility.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of sadness that I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-43, a bill to recriminalize abortion in Canada.
January 29, 1988, was an historic day not just for Canadian women but indeed for all Canadians. It was on that date that the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the criminal provisions dealing with abortion in a decision which stated that they were in breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
November 22, 1989

Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, in her very eloquent reasons for judgment, stated that the right to reproduce or not to reproduce, which is an issue in this case is one such right under section 7 and is properly perceived as an integral part of modern women's struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being. Judge Wilson went on to state that section 251 treated women as a means, a means to an end which she does not desire but over which she has no control. She is the passive recipient of a decision made by others as to whether her body is to be used to nurture a new life.

Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice Brian Dickson, in his judgment on the Morgentaler case, said that forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she met some criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations is a profound interference with her body and thus violates security of the person.

In striking down the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with abortion, the court recognized a number of very serious flaws in that legislation, flaws which frequently led to delays that put women at risk and increased the risk of complication. Indeed, Canada had the second highest rate of mid-trimester abortions of all industrialized nations. The requirements for therapeutic abortion committees clearly led to the kind of delays that, in turn, resulted in complications which could lead to health problems for Canadian women.
In addition, too often in this country we have seen destructive battles for the control of hospital boards based solely on the question of abortion because of deeply held feelings on the part of both those who oppose abortion and those who are in support of freedom of choice. Instead of hospital boards which are elected to deal with a whole range of health care concerns, under the old legislation we had hospital boards which too often were driven in a harsh and unrealistic way to respond only on this issue.
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the dedication and the commitment of many women and men across this land in the struggle that culminated in the great victory for women on January 29, 1988 when
Government Orders
the criminal law with respect to abortion was struck down.
I remember the role played by Grace Mclnnis. Grace Mclnnis, a former New Democratic Party Member of Parliament, served this country with distinction in a whole range of areas, was the only woman in the House of Commons who, when the provisions on the Criminal Code were adopted, stood up with dignity and courage and called for this decision to be left to a woman and her doctor, outside the purview of criminal law.
I think of my very distinguished predecessor as the spokesperson on justice for the New Democratic Party, Stuart Leggatt, now a judge in British Columbia, who fought long and hard to establish this principle. Many of my colleagues in the House today, and I single them out in particular, one being the spokesperson on the status of women, my colleague for Vancouver East has struggled so long, not just for freedom of choice, but for real alternatives for Canadian women to help reduce the number of abortions in Canada.
I think of the women from across this land who have struggled to establish free standing clinics to provide women with access to safe therapeutic abortions, Every Woman's Health Clinic in Vancouver, a clinic in Winnipeg, in Toronto, and those women who are seeking to establish a clinic in Halifax.
I think of Dr. Henry Morgentaler. Dr. Morgentaler has waged a battle of courage, integrity and in some cases doing time in jail to stand up for the right of Canadian women to make this basic decision for themselves.
I think of Chantal Daigle, a young woman from Quebec whose personal life was dragged across the front pages of the newspapers and television, and who was the victim of an act of judicial violence in my view by the Quebec Court of Appeal. I was in the Supreme Court of Canada for the hearings and I rejoiced when the Supreme Court reversed that decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal, that decision which allowed her boyfriend to tell her that she could not make this very difficult and agonizing decision for herself and who had admitted that, yes, he had beaten her but he had not left any marks.
Many of us had hoped that this government would recognize that instead of bringing forward new criminal legislation, what was needed were changes to Canada's health legislation to ensure equitable access across this

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
country and concrete measures to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and to assist women who want to keep their children but who, in many cases, are faced with a crushing burden of poverty.
That was not to be so. What did this bill do? While the Supreme Court of Canada in its judgment on Chantal Daigle has closed the door on civil injunctions, this Conservative government has opened the door to criminal prosecution of both women and their doctors. We in the New Democratic Party find that deeply offensive and we reject categorically recriminalization of abortion in this land.
Let us be very clear on this. This has been a long standing policy of the New Democratic Party. It is with considerable sadness that I have listened this evening to representatives from the Liberal party, including the associate critic on justice who indicated that they will be supporting this bill at second reading and agreeing to the recriminalization of abortion. Indeed, it is not surprising, given the fact that the Liberal leader himself in August of this year urged the government to bring forward new criminal legislation.
In introducing this legislation, the Minister of Justice has said that he has confidence in Canadian doctors and Canadian women. If he has confidence in Canadian doctors and Canadian women, and indeed he should, he should recognize that there is no need for new criminal legislation. Instead, we should be moving to ensure under the Canada Health Act access for women across this land. This bill does nothing whatsoever to assist those women in Prince Edward Island who were denied access; to assist the women in Newfoundland who have but a single doctor in St. John's, and when that doctor is sick or on holidays, they must travel to Montreal or elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing at all for women who, in many regions of Quebec, have no abortion service and often Quebec women must travel hundreds of miles to large centres; some hospitals refuse abortions for married women or those who do not use the pill or contraceptive devices.
So we should be looking at access and we should be looking, fundamentally, at alternatives. Instead of cutting back on funding for the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, we should be increasing funding, looking into the whole question of child poverty, into research into safe and effective contraception, to the removal of workplace and environmental reproductive hazards, to care for pregnant women and new mothers, to access to reproductive health services, including abortion services.
In closing, I want to say that these are the issues which we in the New Democratic Party believe should be addressed by this government. Every child must be a wanted child. Yes, I am pro-life. I support the life of those children in our society who are too often victims of poverty, the 150,000 children that line up at food banks every day. I deeply reject the suggestions that somehow we in the New Democratic Party are not in support of life. Indeed, too often those who attack us are concerned about life which starts at conception, but their concern ends at the birth of the child. I want to say that we reject the recriminalization of abortion in Canada and we appeal to this government to take steps to ensure that Canadian children live a life in which they are wanted and in which they do not live in poverty and that Canadian women are allowed to make this very basic and fundamental decision for themselves in consultation with their doctors.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, since Bill C-43 has been made public most of us, I believe, have received considerable numbers of letters from constituents and from interested Canadians in all parts of the country.
It is interesting to note for the record that for completely different reasons we have received and continue to receive correspondence that expresses on the part of the writers a view against the bill. The view is expressed by those who belong to the pro-life movement, as well as by those who are on the pro-choice side of the issue. That fact creates a dilemma for the legislators. When you have two very articulate groups of citizens expressing their views on a very important social issue, it is then left, I suppose, to each one of us to draw our own conclusions as to what course of action to take
November 22, 1989

in an attempt to reflect as well as we can the views of our constituents. Believe me, this breakdown into two streams of correspondence in the mail makes the task arduous.
Nobody likes and nobody wants abortion. And at the same time, nobody wants to treat the mother as if she has no rights from the moment she becomes pregnant. There are rights that have to be taken into account for both the unborn and the mother. And one, I submit to you, does not exclude the other.
Therefore, if you approach the issue from this point then inevitably the legislators have to address the question of demand for abortion. It must be addressed in a manner so as to reduce the demand for abortion by approaching what I would describe the large middle ground of this issue between pro-life and pro-choice ideologies. There is a significant and very important middle ground.
I submit to you that it is not an either/or question. The question is how to deal with the situation so as to reduce as much as possible the demand for abortion and possibly eliminate it. The question is how to reduce the demand.
That subject has been developed in a four-pronged approach. It begins with education of the population at large by way of family planning and by way of education on contraception.
Second, it means dealing with young people providing them with a better teacher than just the experience of life. It means an understanding of how reproduction works, how the human body works and how to prevent the pregnancy.
Third, we come to the important aspect of the involvement of man. As we all know, no woman has made herself pregnant alone. Therefore, man should and must be helped to recognize his equal responsibility in all aspects of sexuality. In terms of decision making, he must be helped to recognize his responsibility also in obtaining and using contraception and also his equal responsibility in the handling of crisis when it occurs.
We must be perfectly clear that there is a desperate need in our society for support services. This issue cannot be treated in isolation from the vacuum that exists today in terms of support services. Therefore, the debate on the question of abortion must focus principally on this question. You need to have social and economic
Government Orders
measures in place in the form of programs. And they must be available to people whether they are rich or poor. In specific terms they have to touch on housing, day care, counselling and on post-natal employment. The fact which has been brought to the attention of all parliamentarians over the years on a number of occasions is that poverty has been found to be one of the strongest reasons for abortion. That fact must be addressed.
I have outlined for you in the limited time available this four-pronged approach which, to my way of understanding the issue, is an essential policy that is needed if we are to discuss in an intelligent manner the question respecting abortions.
I am indebted to the British Columbia Teachers' Status of Women Journal of June of 1988 for having produced these elements. We must also ask ourselves what would be achieved by outlawing abortions. Would it prevent abortions, or would that drive those wanting abortions underground and make the practice one that is still with us but not necessarily in a visible form? The polarization of this issue is a matter of serious concern, and as parliamentarians it seems to me that we should resist stressing what divides us on this issue and stress instead what brings us together on a social issue of such importance.
We must, therefore, identify the viable solutions of this matter. Why create a conflict, I ask you? Why sharpen it? Why not instead diffuse it where possible and to the largest possible degree?
A lot has been said on Bill C-43. I wanted to put on record some views. I must tell you that in the knowledge I have of this bill tonight, if a vote were to take place, I would find it necessary to vote against it because I find it inadequate.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, while it may be difficult, if not impossible for me to offer any new perspective or original thought on the subject of abortion after the many thousands of words which have been spoken previously on this subject in this House, nevertheless, I do value this opportunity to express my own views about the issue, both in terms of my personal convictions as an individual and of my legislative responsibilities as a Member of Parliament.

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
In fact, I think it is extremely important to note these two very distinct aspects to the role of all hon. members in considering this matter of abortion. Perhaps it is only such a rare issue which is so unique to itself. Those considerations are not only how we feel about abortion within our own minds and consciences but also how we view our responsibilities as elected representatives to consider abortion on behalf of society, to reflect the common interest, to lead public opinion, to bring order out of confusion and, in short, to provide good government with respect to this most difficult subject.

Mr. Speaker, I found that abortion is more than a difficult issue. For me, it shows the very need for a government decision. I personally have not only the problem of reconciling my own ideas with those of my constituents but also my great priority of helping create a law for good government. But in fact, in Canada, our constituents are extremely divided. According to the best estimates, approximately 20 per cent are truly opposed to abortion, another 20 per cent are for free choice and about 60 per cent are in between these two extremes.

To add further complexity to the decision which I and each one of us must make is the fact that the Supreme Court has struck down existing laws concerning abortion and since that has happened in the vacuum of any effective federal law, there have been lower court judgments in various parts of Canada which have brought sharply conflicting rulings and which have, over the past several months, created a sad spectacle of social confusion, intrusion of privacy, and embarrassment of individuals, all into full public view on our television screens.
There is little wonder then that in this House of Commons we are facing a continuing dilemma of a clear need to create law governing abortion and to provide legal and ethical guidelines for Canadian society. Yet being frustrated by the experience of the last Parliament, when I understand this House was unable to gain a majority on any one of a combination of resolutions and amendments put before it about abortion, it is in this context about an issue bearing all of the agonizing characteristics to be the most extreme of political considerations, that the government recently invited a number of caucus members to grapple with the subject to seek a
resolution that would meet the test of three imperatives. First, a resolution that would be in the form of a law adequate to provide a clear legal and ethical reference for all Canadians. Second, a resolution that would receive the approval of this House of Commons by way of at least majority voting support by its members. Third, a resolution that would, in all likelihood, prove stable against any appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
As one of those caucus members invited to participate in these discussions, I feel it is worthwhile to share with all of my colleagues and my constituents the process of considerations which we pursued in arriving at, for the most part reluctantly I should say, the consensus which is generally reflected in the content of Bill C-43 now before us. Represented in the composition of our group was the complete range of views that undoubtedly exist among hon. members and, in fact, among Canada's population about the abortion issue, from strong antiabortion convictions on the one hand to equally strong freedom-of-choice positions on the other, and with a spectrum of moderate views between those two extremes.
Convictions and positions were not easily sacrificed in the search for consensus. But as our discussions intensified to meet these three essential criteria, a gradual movement emerged toward the higher level of our responsibilities as legislators and to the compelling objective of creating a law to govern abortion that would meet all the tests. What we have arrived at, as expressed in Bill C-43, is a consensus that represents, as I have said previously, the true essence of politics, "The art of the possible", with respect to abortion.
There was full accord that a law governing abortion was an essential requirement for Canadian society. But it was not possible to reach accord in total opposition to abortion and it was not possible to reach accord in support for complete freedom of choice. This Bill C-43 was not the original position nor even the first consensus choice of the participants. Eventually, it did emerge as the one statement which we have come to believe will best provide a legal framework for a national position on abortion, while at the same time winning a majority support in the House of Commons to become law, and having the most likelihood to successfully withstand appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada.
November 22, 1989

This position was reached only after long and intense debate and only with politically responsible reflection on the part of virtually all members involved. I would readily call it a consensus but I would hesitate to describe it as a compromise in the traditional sense of that word, because it does express some important principles which make it, in my view, a distinctive and contemporary Canadian legal statement.
What does Bill C-43 really say? Well, for me, it clearly seems to say several important things. First, it says that abortion is fundamentally illegal in Canada and that protection of the foetus from conception until birth is a basic priority. It says that the health of the mother is also a priority, be it physical, mental or psychological and may take precedence over the foetus if judged to be necessary in the opinion of the woman's doctor.
It does not purport to render a decision about the legality of any specific abortion, but rather places the onus for that judgment in every case upon the doctor as he or she may be licensed to practise medicine under the laws of each respective province. It says, by implication, that the selection and approval of facilities where an abortion may be performed will similarly be at the judgment of the doctor within generally accepted standards of the medical profession in the province or provinces in which the doctor is licensed to practise. It also seems to say by implication that the payment of medicare benefits for abortion procedures will be in accordance with federal-provincial medicare agreements within the province or provinces in which the doctor is licensed to practise medicine and in which the abortion is carried out.
In terms of the broad public debate with which the abortion issue has been seized over the past many months, Bill C-43 does implicitly address the value and dignity of life, both of the foetus and of the mother. As proposed, Bill C-43 clearly states the principle of protection of the foetus from the moment of conception until birth. It does so by making it illegal to induce an abortion unless the mother's health is threatened. It also does so by excluding any reference to a gestational period of time. Therefore, I believe that Bill C-43 does clearly state fundamental respect for life from conception which
Government Orders
is a deeply held conviction for a large number of Canadians, perhaps for most of us.
At the same time, Bill C-43 recognizes the priority of the woman's own health and her right to obtain an abortion if her health is threatened either physically, mentally or psychologically. I realize that this is a broad definition of health, subject to the professional opinion of the woman's doctor, and in practical terms will ensure that abortion is accessible on a reasonable and equitable basis for all women where it is required.
Essentially, the proposed law recognizes that abortion is a medical decision and places the onus for that decision on the qualified medical opinion of the doctor in consultation with the woman. The criminal responsibility for abortion decisions has been transferred from the woman to the doctor.
I think it is worth stating that even in so-called circumstances of free choice, the woman ultimately would have to gain the approval of a doctor to have the abortion. So freedom of choice is never really absolute. Also I have become convinced that most of those who support freedom of choice as a right do not necessarily or even generally support abortion as a principle.
Considering all of these factors, I remain convinced that Bill C-43 is the best possible resolution and perhaps the only right one for this very difficult issue. Not only do I feel that way because it is my first duty as a parliamentarian to help create an effective law on this subject but, coincidentally, Bill C-43 as it is now proposed does reasonably reflect my own moderate position on the matter as I have previously and consistently expressed in public.
Perhaps my previous views bear repeating at this time. I would like to say that one year ago during the election campaign of 1988 I expressed the view that abortion was a difficult decision to be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor. If the question arose in my own daughter's case, I would encourage her to bear the child. Ultimately, however, I would be prepared to accept her decision with love and respect, whatever that decision might be, subject to the professional opinion of her doctor.
In closing, we as parliamentarians and legislators must address ourselves to a consensus which will provide for most Canadians some basis for social order and tolerance among conflicting views, if not for reconciliation of

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
those views. I believe that over time Bill C-43 will prove to fulfil such purposes and I encourage all hon. members to give it their support.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this evening to be able to address the House on the subject of Bill C-43.1 think it is fair at the outset to indicate to the House that I do not feel I can support this bill.
The main reason is that I do not believe the bill accomplishes the goal that I think it should have set out to achieve. It uses the same framework as the previous abortion legislation contained in the Criminal Code before the Morgentaler decision. That old framework, going back many years, in which our society attempted to prohibit or curtail abortions, was based on what I think history shows was a profound ignorance of what happened inside the womb.
The generations which preceded us had very little knowledge of the intricacies of child development in the womb and afterward for that matter. As a result they tried to resolve the messy problem of abortion by targeting the mother and the abortionist. At this stage in our history I do not believe that we have any more excuses. We have no excuses not to recognize precisely what happens in the womb and the various stages of development of life.
It is my view that we should not be prohibiting abortions based on who the mother is, or who the father is, or who the doctor is, or what they think at the time. We should be dealing with the issue of abortion because of who the foetus is. I want to suggest that the foetus, this will not surprise anyone here, is in fact the genesis of all human life. It is the genesis of all of mankind here on the planet today. I believe in our society what this government should be recognizing is that genesis of life and the protection to which it should be entitled.
We continue to learn more every day about how life is formed and how the human body takes shape. The study of genetics is a major field of study and experimentation today. I believe that that particular field of study is related to the way in which we deal with the issue of abortion. I am not suggesting that a statute or a bill proposal now would be able to deal with all of the issues.
I recognize that a royal commission has been created for the purpose of studying several of those issues.
I do fear how our society will deal with issues such as the human mutant, created unintentionally or intentionally, and I believe that that issue should be dealt with in the same framework as the human foetus should be treated in our law. I believe that all of our laws should reflect this and I believe that our Charter should reflect this. The use of the Criminal Code to deal with protection of the foetus is anachronistic and it is based on ignorant concepts of just how human life begins.
I believe our law should be protecting the foetus. However, the current proposal does only two things. First, it sets out to criminalize the conduct of a mother, or a doctor, or an abortionist, and then it creates an exception to that criminalization, which really provides in the end result no protection to the foetus. Last, the bill fails to articulate for society the role of society in ensuring that birthing and parenting are properly regarded as essential elements in the health and well-being of our country. I do not believe that removing the foetus from the womb at any stage and disposing of the foetus as we customarily dispose of our normal refuse accomplishes any of these goals for our society and I think it is crucially important that we recognize this at this stage of our history.
I feel that with this bill, I and that portion of humanity which may still be in the womb are still awaiting a bill which will accomplish these goals.


Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to address Bill C-43 on abortion. This is a matter that is extremely difficult for me because I feel it is very personal for each individual and that I should not be advancing my own views on this issue. At the same time it is important to relay my constituents' views on issues of their concern and this is the first occasion to convey those concerns on abortion.
Allow me to present three aspects: First, an overview of Bill C-43 as we understand it; second, some concerns that arise therefrom and third, my own position regarding BiU C-43.
This is indeed a controversial issue but we need legislation without further delay. This proposed legislation pays heed to the Supreme Court's opinion on abortion. In the January 1988 decision the Supreme Court of Canada reminded us as federal law makers that any policy or law on abortion, first, could not deny a
November 22, 1989

woman fair and reasonable access to abortion, second, must protect the woman's constitutional right to security of the person and, third, would reflect the state's interest in the foetus. Finally, it would have to protect the woman's life.
Bill C-43 achieves all of these objectives to some extent in its attempt to accommodate both sides of the debate. Unfortunately it will not be possible to satisfy both sides. The Supreme Court also recommended that Parliament secure a medically sound opinion as to the meaning of life or health. The proposed legislation now provides a definition as to the meaning of health. Section 287(2) states that health includes, for greater certainty, physical, mental and psychological health. Perhaps consideration ought to be given to a more narrow definition, to help define mental and psychological or, in the alternative, certain guidelines could be included for the doctor to use in his assessment process.
This bill reflects the fundamental belief that abortion is a medical act, one that requires consultation between a woman and her doctor so that valid health grounds can be established, thereby respecting society's interest in a foetus. However, this may give a doctor an absolute discretion in making a decision. It is his opinion that is decisive to the issue of termination of pregnancy.
Opinion has been defined in Section 287(2) as an opinion formed using generally accepted standards of the medical profession. It is unclear, however, what generally accepted standards of the medical profession are and who will overlook the medical doctors' practices to ensure these standards are being adhered to.
There is no enforcement mechanism or review of this opinion. If a review of doctors' practices were put in place perhaps the interests of the unborn would be better protected. Some have argued that the unborn is protected by the criminal sanction imposed but this is after the fact. There does appear a need for clearer guidelines to be given to the doctor so he can carry out the intention of Parliament, which is to achieve a balance.
If I may digress for a moment to a personal perspective, as a native Indian my upbringing has had a significant bearing on my own views of life. We view life in all forms to be very important. Human life is to be ho-
Govemment Orders
noured and respected as a gift of the great spirit. It is a gift for which we are to be very thankful.
In conclusion, although it does not fully protect the unborn, the passage of this bill at second reading is imperative. It is imperative so that we are all afforded the opportunity to move to committee where I hope to see more clarification or improvement in substance.
Therefore my position, one of pro-life, is to support passage of Bill C-43 at second reading. We need legislation with which to work and I look forward to amendments that may improve the proposed legislation. The full process of Parliament must be executed for this very vital issue.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak against this bill. It is a bill that is wrong in principle and it is a bill that will be hurtful in practice. I believe very strongly that in the final analysis the decision to terminate a pregnancy or, to put it the other way around, the decision to carry a baby to term, must be that of the woman alone. For the state to interfere with that decision is profoundly wrong in principle. For that to be adopted by this House, an overwhelming case in principle and in practice must be made, and no such case has been made.
I address the House as a New Democrat. Our party's position is clear. Our leader last night put our position on record very eloquently. I speak as a Canadian and as a father. I believe that life is sacred and that we must treat life with great respect, but I believe that this bill does not do so, that this bill will not protect unborn babies or the foetus. This is a bill, to put it very bluntly, which is designed to protect politicians.
I speak as a Christian. I believe that life is the gift of God. But I believe in the final analysis that the complex decision that must take place in balancing the act of creation with the reality of creation must be made by the woman. That decision cannot be made by a doctor, that decision cannot be made by parliamentarians, that decision cannot be made by lawyers or judges. It must be made in the final analysis by the woman involved and it will be made by the woman involved whatever law this House adopts.
Canadians have varying degrees of views on what is moral in this area of abortion. Some would say, as we have heard in the House so far, that virtually no abortion could be described as moral. Others would accept it perhaps in the case of rape or incest; others would say if the life of the woman is endangered; others would say if the health of the woman is endangered. That decision about health can be defined in different ways; physical,

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
mental or psychological health. Others would say that it is moral to have an abortion if in the final decision that pregnancy would be unwanted. There are these different views and no law can capture that range of different moral views on this very difficult question.
This bill encapsulated one view which is that it is moral to have an abortion if the health of the mother, as defined by physical, mental or psychological health, is at risk. But that is not a view which is universally shared in this country. Therefore, apart from anything else, this bill will not work. It is wrong in principle and it will be wrong and hurtful in practice.
The church to which I belong, the Anglican Church of Canada, has spoken out on this issue. Many faithful Anglicans have taken different positions. The church itself is, as it describes it, cautiously in favour of the bill. In my view that position is wrong, and the reservations which the Anglican Church has are more powerful than the reasons it advances for the bill.
Let me deal with a series of specific flaws in this bill. First, it reverses the onus. It says than an abortion is unlawful unless certain circumstances are met. That puts the onus on the defendant to show that the defendant is not guilty of an offence.
Second, by having the law turn on the opinion of a doctor the bill then becomes open to challenge from every kook and every nut who wants to challenge the individual decision of that doctor. Every doctor is going to have a somewhat different view of what is involved in the medical health of the mother in a particular case. Not only do we have a law which is open to challenge from whoever chooses to challenge it, but we also have a law which will be widely inconsistent in application. A law which is inconsistent in application is a bad law.
There is no requirement in this law that where an abortion is lawful a hospital must perform it. There is no guarantee of access to a lawful abortion and that is why the Supreme Court struck down the other law. This law will not stand the test which is why I say again it is a law
not to protect the foetus, it is a law to protect politicians who must band together to try to fend off attack.
This is an occasion not for compromise on principle, this is an occasion for a principal decision by each individual legislator in this House. This bill offends the decision of the Supreme Court in Canada by making abortions in the early terms of pregnancy illegal in certain circumstances. It alters the doctor-patient relationship. In every other case the doctor offers an opinion to the patient and the patient decides in the final analysis whether to accept the treatment and the recommendation of the doctor. This turns that relationship on its head. It puts the doctor in the controlling position. Doctors in this country should be standing up in force against this legislation and this House should not put doctors in this position.
This bill invites doctor shopping. There will become known in the community doctors who take a broad view of the language of this bill. There will be doctors who take a narrow view. In communities where there is only one doctor, who may take a very narrow view, women will be deprived of a right which they have in other communities of Canada.
Finally, this bill fails to meet one of the underlying fundamental requirements of any criminal law which is that it reflects the broad consensus in the society. There is no consensus around the moral provisions of this bill and that, among other reasons, is why the bill will fail.
I want to refer the House to the words of Madam Justice Wilson. She said:
This decision (of having an abortion) 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 reflects 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.
Those are wise words, Madam Speaker, words which this House must take into account. She said further on the question of religion and conscience:
Accordingly, for the state to take sides on the issue of abortion, as it does in the impugned legislation by making it a criminal offence for the pregnant woman to exercise one of her options, is not only to endorse but also to enforce, on pain of a further loss of liberty through actual

November 22, 1989

imprisonment, one conscientiously-held view at the expense of another. It is to deny freedom of conscience to some, to treat them as means to an end, to deprive them -of their "essential humanity". Can this comport with fundamental justice?
The way with which this issue of abortion must be dealt is not to put it back in the criminal law. The Supreme Court of Canada has now laid down the grounds that under existing law the foetus has no legal rights. The foetus may have moral rights. That is for each individual to determine. But the foetus has no legal rights and in that regime we can then move to begin truly to protect children in our society, to protect women in our society, to protect life in our society.


Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: November 22, 1989
Government Orders
fellow citizens of social and medical services. I simply want to express my deep and personal conviction. I lived in Quebec during the 40s and 50s when the word was "believe or die", and in my pastoral activities, while promoting and suggesting the great values of the gospel to my congregation, I always tried to show tolerance and I was one of those who enjoyed meeting with divorced people, it did not matter to me. If you believe the lesson of the gospel, the Church welcomes you.
I think that as legislators in this House we ought to be tolerant. I am fully aware tonight that we must legislate within narrow limits for the Supreme Court would never accept a bill which would condemn abortion outright. This is something we must realize and tell our people. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would rule that such a bill goes against the right of women to the security of their person as was emphasized by Chief Justice Dickson. But there is the other side of the coin, the respect for life which is a real value, something which Justices Beetz and Wilson emphasized, adding that the interest of the state is to safeguard a minimum of control.
I feel, therefore, that Bill C-43 introduces an interesting element, the fact that the medical profession will have to decide. It is an interesting notion. Judging from a number of speeches here, I had the feeling that physicians are nothing but robots and automatons; yet, we are all well aware of the tact the Canadian Medical Association maintain very high standards and that most physicians I know are respectable people who do not decide lightly to carry out an operation, either to terminate a pregnancy or in any other area. I suggest that we should rely on the professional competence and quality of Quebec and Canadian practitioners. Whatever the position Parliament may adopt and it is a very pragmatic view, in my pastoral work I had personally to interview women who had decided to seek an abortion and I tried to reason with them, but when a woman has made up her mind, she will go ahead no matter what Parliament may decide. In this connection, a legislation which would be too stringent would favour affluent women and make it possible for those who can afford it, to have their pregnancies terminated wherever such services are available.
Therefore, we need a legislation which provides a balance between- A legislation is not an ideal in life. We are aware that the law forbids us to kill, but I wonder if life would be worth living if our purpose was simply not to kill at any cost. We are here to set up a framework within which the respect for life is proclaimed as a principle, abortion is forbidden unless a qualified physician agrees it is justified.
This being said, Madam Speaker, I would like in conclusion to make a very important point. It seems to me that the abortion legislation now before us must be examined in the light of the need for a much more comprehensive family policy. In that respect, I very much appreciated the speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who listed a number of projects that hopefully will be announced in the shortest possible timeframe to help enlighten Canadians. I am referring especially to young people. Of the 70,000 abortions performed each year in Canada, half involved women under 25. In that respect, whether in the area of family planning or tax measures for families on child care, I for one hope that we revive as soon as possible what we had on the Table before Parliament was dissolved before the election, so that families once more are given support and that we go to the root of the problem. I cannot believe that there is a single Canadian woman were she to enjoy physical and psychological health, and financial means, who would even accept to have her pregnancy terminated. It is my hope that this government will compliement this abortion legislation with a series of measures to ensure that families, pregnant women and girls can have all the financial, moral and psychological support they should expect from the state.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak again on this subject, having spoken on it just about 18 months ago. I would like to make several points that are important to me and I think maybe are important to a broad spectrum of our society.
First, I would like to say that there are two reasons for this debate. The first is that any civilized society must make a statement about what it values the most, what is normal, what is orderly. If we are to be a civilized society, that is the nature of civilization. We speak to order, we speak to value, we speak to norms.
November 22, 1989

The legislation we are debating today prohibiting abortions except in certain circumstances is making a statement about life, it is making a statement about what is normal and wholesome and orderly, and it is doing it by implication because it does not address those factors. It is making a statement about sanctions. But in speaking to sanctions this bill is saying that in the ordinary course of things it is normal to give birth; it is extraordinary to ask for an abortion. It is normal to want to give life, it is normal to be exuberant at the thought of birth and exuberant at the thought of reproducing ourselves. That is normality. It is extraordinary to have an abortion. In fact, the Supreme Court itself in its language of January 1988 called abortion an extraordinary medical procedure.
We are dealing with sanctions. As in all of life, while we are permitted to do almost anything, the law speaks to those sanctions which we find repulsive and we will not tolerate in a civilized society. Because we are speaking to sanctions in this legislation it underscores the normal, the accepted, the value of life.
The second reason we are debating this bill now is because the Supreme Court has asked us to. It said in its Morgentaler decision that there are two important factors about abortion. One is the protection of women and the second is the protection of life. It threw out the old abortion legislation because it did not properly protect women. It needed to throw out that legislation because if women are to have protection it cannot be seen as being uneven across Canada. It cannot be arbitrary, nor can it be illusory. Therefore, the Supreme Court was absolutely correct in rejecting the former legislation.
In pronouncing its judgment it also asked Parliament, almost begged Parliament, to make a definition of the value of the foetus. I quote Justice Wilson on page 26 of her judgement as follows:
"I believe that the main objective advanced to justify a restriction on the pregnant woman's Section 7 right is the protection of the foetus. I think this is a perfectly valid legislative objective."
Justice Dickson in the majority decision states at page 38:
Government Orders
Like Beetz and Wilson, I agree that the protection of the 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.
Beetz goes on to state at page 43 of his judgment: "Accordingly I believe that the state's interest in protecting potential human life exists throughout pregnancy."
On page 4 he makes this statement: "The primary objective of Section 251 of the Criminal Code is the protection of the foetus. The protection of the life and health of a pregnant woman is an ancillary objective. The primary objective does relate to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society in which, pursuant to Section 1 of the charter, justify reasonable limits to be put on a woman's right."
The Supreme Court has asked us to make a statement about worth. This legislation, by stating that the foetus deserves protection from conception to birth, makes a statement about worth of that foetus, of that unborn child.
It speaks to intrinsic worth. It does not depend on external factors like viability, or potential, or becoming a productive member of society. Those are externals. The worth of the unborn is intrinsic. It does not depend on those externals. Any gestational approach implies or suggests some level of expendability, a graduated level of worth.
Sooner or later, unfortunately, when we introduce those kinds of graduated values, it becomes reduced to an economic unit rather than the intrinsic value of becoming a productive member of society-will that person fit, will that person be able to earn a living, will that person be dependent? It comes down to economic values.
The irony is that for centuries women who have been angered at their subjugation at the hands of a male dominated society have rebelled against values that put extrinsic worth on them rather than intrinsic worth. For years they have tried to make the point, and have done it successfully, that they have value in themselves, not because they are housewives, lawyers, or doctors, but because they are people the way anyone else is.
If that is true for women, is that not true for the unborn? Should we perpetuate the notion that life has extrinsic value rather than intrinsic value?

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
This legislation is important because it states clearly that life is important from conception on, and everybody has worth regardless of the age at time of conception or time of senility. It is not the value we put on them that makes them valued.
It is time for us to be building an ethical climate that will provide security and sanctity for the unborn from the moment of conception.
I want to read, in closing, from an article in a publication entitled Christianity Today. It is an article written by Tim Stafford on October 6 in which he states, referring to Roe v. Wade, and I ask my colleagues to bear with me:
The discussion had been about where to draw the line among tragic choices; the justices erased the line completely and said there was no room for further discussion.
Anti-abortionists may someday have reason to remember this lesson, if they gain the power to stop abortion by fiat. As we have seen, restricting abortion works best when it is based on a wider consensus about the value of life. The first centuries of the church gained this consensus through centuries of witness. They spoke passionately against abortion as a part of their faith. They also suffered for their faith. Ultimately their faith triumphed and legal changes followed.
By contrast, the 19th centuiy though it passed anti-abortion laws seems not to have built a strong, public consciousness of the humanity of a foetus.
Ethicist Stanley Hauerwas touches on this issue when he notes the frustration of anti-abortionists who fail to convince their opponents that a foetus is a human being. He says that more than logic is needed and continues:
Christian arguments about abortion -have not merely failed to convince: they have failed to suggest the kind of "reorientation" necessary if we are to be the kind of people and society that make abortion unthinkable -Even if [we succeed politically!, our success may still be a form of failure if we "win" without changing the presuppositions of the debate.
That is what Christians in the first three centuries managed to do. They changed the world, not just the law.
I would say, Madam Speaker, to the many people out there who are concerned about this issue that we are facing an ethical morass more than a legal morass. I was watching television the other day and I heard Carmen McRae sing a song and the recurring line was: "Your gentle touch has made me strong".
I would say to those anti-abortionists out there who are carrying placards and chaining themselves to fences: put away the chains, put away the placards, and get a little closer to people. The confrontation separates us. If we could get close enough to embrace and to comfort,
rather than to confront, then maybe we could begin building the kind of an ethical consensus that would make a stronger abortion law possible and give the kind of protection to the unborn that all of us hunger for.
This legislation speaks to life. We want all of society to cherish the life that we propose here.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this bill, a bill that addresses an issue of the hearts, of the minds and souls of people. It is an issue in which we find very strongly held points of view on both sides.
There are those who would believe that this bill answers neither side of the question. It does not fully satisfy those who believe in a pro-choice point of view nor obviously, if one has just listened to our colleague, those who believe in a pro-life point of view. This is not the time in our society when one can afford to hold to one's personal conviction, which I would respect and hope that others would respect. I think it is a time to find a kind of compromise.
The question is: Does this bill answer the compromise that is required? I am still not very sure. I am still not 100 per cent comfortable with this bill.
This bill does respond to the jurisdiction question; it is a federal jurisdiction. It does define the act as a medical procedure. For that I am very pleased, for in the definition of a medical procedure it defines itself properly in the potential for access across this land. The question as to whether or not full access will be made available is one which I think will have to be looked at very carefully in legislative committee.
That women should have to consult their doctor, a medical practitioner, I believe to be sound. I believe that you do need to consult. The decision as to whether or not you wish to terminate a pregnancy is not an easy decision.
In fact I would suggest that the only time I would ever really enter into a very serious argument with colleagues who have a different point of view from mine is when they tell me that this act is one that a woman would undertake as an act of contraception. I find that to be very offensive. It is not an act of contraception. It is a very difficult emotional decision, one that is not easily taken. I would suggest that anyone who thinks otherwise has either never been pregnant or has not got very much
November 22, 1989

heart or is very hard minded in his or her own point of view.
I would suggest that being able to take an informed choice is very important. I would think being able to talk to a medical practitioner is helpful. I also believe it is very important that one have the best of health and the best of medical practice when a decision is taken, if the decision is taken to terminate her pregnancy. I believe the ultimate decision is that of the woman, but I do believe that she needs help and guidance. I trust the woman and the medical ethics of our medical profession.
The reservations I have about this bill and the reason I will vote to send it to legislative committee is that there are some issues that must be carefully examined. I do not know the answers, but I do know that there are concerns in this bill.
I believe that it needs careful scrutiny. I believe we must hear from the medical profession. I believe it must be checked to see if it will withstand a court challenge. I believe there are women who have to be heard.
While I support the full right of women to choose, I am well aware of the fact that others do not agree with this point of view. Because there are deeply held divisions in this society, there are no easy answers.
I would have preferred no law. When one lived through this past summer and saw the degradation and the stress that two cases before the courts underwent, the cases of Barbara Dodd and Chantal Daigle, one realized that there must be some form of legal format. Therefore, we cannot afford a country that is going to have 11 different laws and no sensible approach to this very difficult situation. The uncertainty is more than I think this society can withstand again. We certainly do not want that humiliation once again.
I am not happy that it has gone into the Criminal Code. I want to make very sure with legal counsel in legislative committee that there were sound reasons that it could not go under the Canada Health Act had it been amended. I understand and I accept the minister's perspective, but I would like to hear it once again.
I would hope if it absolutely must be recriminalized that we can find the mechanism through the Canada Health Act to ensure that access will be afforded all
Government Orders
women who take a decision, and not lightly, to terminate their pregnancies and to ensure that it can be met in every province and every town where this request is made.
I would suggest to you that there are a series of rights that come. With those rights come personal responsibility on behalf of the individual woman to make an enlightened decision early in her pregnancy. Equally there is the responsibility of the state to provide the means for a woman to take that decision, knowing that her society truly cares for her child, truly cares that these children will be brought up to be productive, well informed, well nourished, intelligent young people.
Our society has far from demonstrated that caring to date. We do not have the kind of support system or the cadre politique familial that we need.
We are in desperate need of a look at how we handle children in our society. There is violence against children, rape, incest, lack of decent food, lack of proper housing and child care. There is a lack of the kind of incentives that would help a woman make that enlightened choice.
I say to you that while rights and responsibilities go together, it is not only for the individual woman making that decision. It is not only for the individual doctor who is helping and counselling her. It is also for those of us who are legislators to determine what are the highest priorities in society and then direct those funds. It is not the death that is important. It is the life of these children.
I would suggest to you that we see this new law in the light of the concerns and constraints that many of us are expressing around this particular issue and that we try as best as possible to find the medium, the middle line. That road will not answer all our concerns. I am definitely one who would prefer a woman to be able to make that decision in an enlightened way and be solely responsible herself.
Those of you who feel that there should be no option, that life begins at conception and there are no other choices, will understand that we as legislators have to find something that will answer that need. We all live in a very pluralistic society today. We all come from very different backgrounds, upbringings and personal perspectives. For a woman who is about to make a choice, we must respect that choice but find the cadre in the

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
legislative perspective that will best meet her need and that of our society.
I have certain disappointments with the bill. There are certain aspects of the bill that I find acceptable. For goodness sakes, let us start to think about sex education in the schools. Sexuality is part of our humanity. We have to find a way to share the responsibilities of that sexuality, if it has to be through teaching in the schools because the parents cannot do it properly or teaching in whatever way or with whatever medium. It is important that they understand.
I would like to suggest that while I am pro-choice I find the best answer to meet the differences in our society will be the best response possible.
As one would say, as Canadians it is the best that is possible in a world of all possibilities. I will certainly vote to send this bill to a legislative committee.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, I must compliment you on your ability to listen attentively to the entreaties of all hon. members on the issue before this House, Bill C-43, what Canadians have come to regard as the abortion legislation.
I daresay that that ability must surely be taxed. I wonder whether in fact you are at all not unlike so many of our citizens, or even some of our colleagues, as argument, as philosophy, as emotion and, yes, even rhetoric buffet one's faculties from intervention to intervention. It calls up respect for the various positions explained by so many members who go through the tortuous ordeal in an effort to find a path so right, so true, so appropriate for a Canadian society that is, and for a Canadian society that is becoming.
Many colleagues have attempted the juridical approach to the question noting along the way that jurisprudence reflects social convention often following in the footsteps of accepted practice and rarely venturing into the realm of groundbreaking, in effect reflecting, and I quote a previous member, "things as they are and not as they should be".
It has been difficult to take umbrage with arguments of colleagues. They have been thoughtful and deliberate. They have been respectful of the need to be tolerant, I daresay, to the point of being obsequiously courteous to those whose arguments have been in diametric opposition to their own. Perhaps this is so because we all have a basic premise from which we launch ourselves in this debate. That premise, no matter what it is, is today faced with a dilemma as hon. colleagues espouse one position or another on the bill.
Examine if you will for a moment the consequences of voting no to this bill and carrying the vote. In so doing I might remind colleagues that of a most moving speech that I heard from an hon. member yesterday, a minister of the Crown, who reflected some, I beleive, widely held views, pointed to the "failings", the "deficiencies" and the "incompleteness" in this legislation, and still felt that a yes vote was required because the alternative to this bill was no law at all. No law means that those who advocate abortion on demand carry the day. Those who oppose this bill on the grounds that it is virtual abortion on demand are faced with a dilemma. I am such a one.
If we vote yes we accept in principle that abortion is undesirable. We acknowledge that anyone who wants one can have one, a medical practitioner accepting. Yet, there are no procedures imposed on the medical practitioner, no definitions of conduct, no guidelines of practice, no mechanism for adjudicating that practice.
In a word, the government has accepted that the question of abortion is merely a medical matter between a woman and her doctor. That is not what the government was encouraged to do when the Supreme Court struck down the old abortion legislation nearly two years ago. That ruling confirmed, perhaps positively I daresay-I hope positively-that women have universality of access to medical care.
It called on the government and Parliament to determine by way of legislation the rights of a foetus or unborn child, the extent to which those rights are equal to those already born, when those rights may take effect, whether and when the rights of the pregnant mother take precedence, and, if and when society or the state has an interest in the development of life in its foetal stage.
That ruling called on the government for leadership. It has shown none in this bill, nor has it heeded the call to be pro-active and to define life in a context different from that which is current, that is to say, one that sees no alternative to unrestricted abortion on demand. And
November 22, 1989

even, almost perversely I daresay, its caucus members, or some thereof, ask for support for this piece of legislation on the grounds-and in my view it is a little bit too clever by half-that, and I quote them, "the alternative will be the absence of any signal that there is any regard for the value of human life".
Government logic has abdicated the obligation to deal with life to the convenience of debating the issue of abortion and, I might add, in isolation of factors and social issues and policies that make abortion the attractive alternative to birth for many women.
Many hon. colleagues before me have detailed the lack of education on sex and on birth, the societal conditions that breed irresponsible sexual practices, carnal violence and disrespect for the dignity of women. They have spoken of the lack of affordable, accessible day care facilities and of the cost of raising a child by a single parent under the burden of increasing taxation or cutbacks in programs of a social support nature.
Other eloquent members have regretted the government's inaction in the face of the disintegration of the bulwark of social harmony and productivity: family cohesion and the values that emanate from it, that is, a sense of responsibility, a degree of compassion, a modicum of respect for others, mutual support in moments of crises and a long-term approach to actions and consequences.
Rather than show leadership on the question of life and on the quality thereof, the government has contented itself with casting the issue in the context of abortion, a context which invariably favours the rights of those who are present against those who are silent, a context which too often is seen as purely a woman's issue with the unfortunate consequence of pitting one gender against the other, a debate which attacks the contribution of someone like me as improper on gender, religious, cultural or legal grounds.
If we are what we have become as parliamentarians, then can the contribution to such a debate like that of this humble elected member, who is a married father of four, Christian Catholic, an educator and administrator in a constitutionally recognized separate school system which used to teach the family values of which I spoke a moment ago, an elected representative of the people
Government Orders
with the vested authority to promote the best interest of society, be so summarily dismissed? I say no.
We have all come here as parliamentarians to identify and define those values and conventions which distinguish Canadians and to legislate for conditions where these values and conventions are given nourishment to make our society a paragon of harmonious productive social interaction.
Yet with Bill C-43, on so fundamental a social issue the government abdicates to the medical profession its moral and legal responsibility to make decisions regarding life and/or abortion. It requires the provinces to pay for the services consequent to that decision of retaining the right to apply legal sanction under the Criminal Code in the event, unforeseeable today, that a doctor might be unable to satisfy the most generous of guidelines, that is, his or her own personal judgment.
No, our government has an obligation to present legislation that shows purpose and suggests direction. As parliamentarians we, too, then can discharge our obligation to debate the merits of that direction and a means to its realization. Regrettably this Bill C-43 gives us neither.
It asks us to debate legislation that inadequately deals with consequences. Bereft of vision it deprives us of the opportunity to address causes and goals. As such, it represents no compromise. It represents no solution. It is unworthy of support.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I have listened with great respect to the words of the previous speaker, the member for Eglinton-Lawrence. I thank him for them.
I also listened with great respect and admiration to the two speakers who preceded him. I would like to compliment the member for Mount Royal and my colleague, the member for Surrey-White Rock who spoke before her. From separate sides of the issue, they both gave sound, reasoned arguments. They are both to be commended on the strength and obvious sincerity of their presentations. It is a privilege for me to add my thoughts and words on this sensitive and emotional issue.
Each time one of us rises in this chamber to speak on any legislative change we accept a serious responsibility. While speaking we should always remain true to our own personal principles, but at the same time we should be

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
representing the views of those who elected us. We have to balance a requirement to provide leadership with the responsibility to represent the electorate.
Each of us puts a degree of thought, discussion and research into each and every topic that comes before us. I can think of no other issue that has come before this House in the time I have been here which has required the degree of thought and serious soul searching than the moral question of abortion.
To achieve political solutions to the complex and controversial problems that come before us it is often necessary to accept compromise. On this issue, however, views are held so strongly and opinions are so galvanized that many of the people we represent are, because of personal convictions, unwilling or unable to compromise their position or their belief. The same is true for many of the members who sit in this House.
Bill C-43 is by necessity a political answer to a moral question, and as a political answer represents a compromise and moral values are not subject to compromise.
My own personal and deeply held values are that life is sacred from the moment of conception right through until natural death. We do not have the right to murder. We do not want to take upon ourselves the right to take life from the elderly, the infirm or the mentally disabled. Rather we generously provide for their well-being through our envied system of social programs. We seek to enhance the quality of their lives and I question whether this bill does enough to protect the life of the unborn.
The bill does set a moral guideline, but I do not feel the definition of health is strict enough to dramatically reduce the number of abortions actually performed in this country.
Outside this House, and I appreciate that I have not heard it included in the debate, there are some who say that abortion is a women's issue and that men should refrain from commenting. I cannot agree with that. To deny men a voice is to perpetuate the myth that men have no responsibility for pregnancy. I do not accept that.
There is an unfortunate trend in this society of ours. On this and many other issues we ignore the requirement that we should all accept responsibility for our actions. As Canadians we have legislated and protected our rights, but if this society is going to continue to reflect the values upon which it was built, we have to understand and accept the fact that responsibility must precede and overshadow rights.
We are all too willing to demand our rights. Yet, at the same time, we are far too reluctant to assume the responsibilities that go with those rights. On this particular issue, it is essential to recognize that every sexually-active person should accept responsibility for his or her actions. Bill C-43 is an attempt to balance the rights of the mother to life and health with the rights of the unborn child.
In considering those rights, I cannot help but think of the uproar that would come if a newborn baby were discarded by its parents. I would suggest that there would be countless offers of support for such an infant. Canadians from coast to coast, regardless of their income level, religion or walk of life would open their hearts and homes to help and provide for that infant. I cannot comprehend how all those same people would not show that same degree of compassion and sympathy for the unborn.
At the same time, there is another side of the issue that we cannot overlook. When we talk of compassion, we must also be compassionate toward the mother, the woman with an unwanted pregnancy. We who advocate life for the unborn have a responsibility to provide not only compassion but also economic, social and cultural support for that mother. We must provide her with choices, choices other than abortion. We have to enhance an adoption alternative. We should be willing to provide her with economic and moral support so that we encourage and enable her to continue with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.
It has been said by almost everybody in this debate that abortion should not be accepted as a form of birth control. In excess of 65,000 therapeutic abortions were performed in Canada last year. This is far too many. Abortion has become a far too commonly accepted procedure.
We also have to accept the sad fact that no law is going to stop abortion completely. A law cannot change the
November 22, 1989

human heart. It is not going to achieve what society is unwilling to accept. Attitudes and values have to change. Those attitudes and values are formed not in legislation but in our families, our churches and our communities.
Bill C-43 does make a very important statement. It recognizes that life is sacred from the moment of conception and that it does not gain value with age. It sets a moral tone which says that Canada does not condone abortions and because it recognizes that life is sacred from the moment of conception, it should be protected, the only exception being when the health of the mother is threatened.
In a perfect world there would be no need for a law, but our world is far from perfect and Canadians are demanding a law. They will not tolerate another series of court challenges similar to those we have seen in the past year. On the 293 of us in this Chamber falls the responsibility to set a standard for Canadians. Yet within this Chamber and within Canada there is no unanimity. There is no clear consensus as to the perfect law, so we have to compromise. We have to decide whether Canadians will accept a compromise and whether those who hold to either side of the question in this House will accept a compromise.
My decision has come down to two questions. First, is no law better than one that is less than perfect? Second, what is the purpose of the law? With regard to the first question, we have seen what no law can do. I do not want to see a repeat of last summer's series of court challenges, nor do I feel will Canadians accept a decision from us that allows a repeat of those challenges.
More important is the second question. What is the purpose of the law? I have said, and I would hope everyone would accept, that we cannot legislate morality. We cannot change individual values through legislation. What we can do with the law is to set a standard. Beyond that, we must encourage our communities, our churches, our families and individual Canadians to take responsibility for influencing moral values. Although this legislation will not change what is within a person's heart, it can enforce the need for reflection and emphasize the seriousness of action.
It has been stated by some that the bill will restrict a woman's access to abortion. Those on the same side of the issue as myself fear that in reality the definition of
Government Orders
health is too broad and there would be too few restrictions.
We need to set a standard and this is not the law that I would prefer to see. I support a more restrictive definition of health. I have decided after much soul-searching that I will vote for this bill on second reading. Further to that, I will also be urging those who truly love life to encourage others who share that love to help provide support with compassion for those with unwanted pregnancies, to help provide choices for them other than abortion.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I begin by regretting that those of us who participate in the debate at this time in the process have only 10 minutes. I truly feel that it would take me about three hours and 10 minutes to explain everything that there is in my own mind about this issue. Regardless of what I have to say tonight, it is bound to be somewhat truncated, incomplete and therefore inarticulate.
It is also the case that I wish all of the debates that we have in this House were of the quality which we are having on this particular issue. I do not want to use up too much time on this, but this is the kind of debate that those of us who participated in the McGrath committee process had in mind for a wider range of issues in the House. Although, frankly, I do not know if I could stand it if we had a lot of debate like this, because this issue is so very, veiy difficult. It is certainly an issue which has caused me personally no end of personal and intellectual hell since my first election campaign in 1979.
There was a time when I would have wanted to support this bill. It contains elements of what, at one time, I thought would be close to a solution. I used to say to some of my friends when we were talking about this, that what was needed was a form of decent hypocrisy when it came to this issue; that what we needed was something which was pro-life in substance and prochoice in practice; that most Canadians were concerned not so much about the number of abortions that were taking place but about the preservation of certain values and about the preservation of the notion of their being value in unborn life. To a certain extent, this bill does that. In fact, it was described by the hon. member for Kitchener the other day, as being pro-life in substance and pro-choice in practice. It is in that respect that I

November 22, 1989
Government Orders
wonder why so many pro-life members have decided to vote for it but I think I understand what they are doing.
I have arrived after much travail at a view that regards the use of the criminal law as unacceptable with respect to the regulation of abortion. I said this last summer, it is not something that I am saying for the first time, whether we like it or not, the criminal law is an instrument of power and an instrument of coercion. After much struggle I have come to see that much of what this debate is about is power. It is about the power relationships, if you like, between women and men; between women and society. The use of the criminal power in this case, regardless of whether it is ever used, represents a continuing offence against what so many women regard as their rightful self-consciousness as an individual person when it comes to this kind of intensely private decision.
I think the use of the criminal law is inappropriate in this case. I would have hoped that some other way could have been found. I continue to believe that many of the abortions which will be chosen, either in the context of this law if it is passed or in the context of there being no law, will be the wrong choices. I do not think that choices just by virtue of the fact that they are free choices are therefore the right decisions. But I have come to the conclusion that these right or wrong decisions have to be taken by the women involved and not by doctors and not by the state.
I could sum up my position by saying that I think the pro-choice people are right, in many cases for the wrong reasons. I have found much of the rhetoric and many of the assumptions underlying the arguments of the prochoice position to be faulty and to contain assumptions which I reject, but as a policy, not as an inalienable exalted right, I believe that this is the way that we have to go at this point in history.
Having said that the pro-choice people were right in many cases for the wrong reasons, I also think the pro-life people are wrong for all the right reasons. Many of the things they say are values which all of us here want to uphold. Where we disagree is about whether or not those values can in fact be upheld in the way in which they want them to be upheld, through the power of the criminal law.
The law is not just a force, it is also a teacher. So I accept the argument that when we are talking about law
we are talking about values. But we can give a signal about the value we put on unborn life, on children and on families in so many other ways. We can do it by not trying to de-index family allowances. We can do it by a massive attack on child poverty. We can do it in a myriad of different social and economic ways. We can send signals to perspective parents that life, in this case unborn and then young life, is something which we value. Presently, we do not send out those signals very well at all.
I might have been persuaded because I have long advocated a compromise. But, as you can see, I have changed my mind. I might have been more tempted if the compromise had provided an anxiety free period. That is to say, some period in which there might have been a complete pro-choice policy moving to a more restrictive approach in the latter part of the pregnancy. However, I am convinced, because I have had a good look at the CMA guidelines and other medical regulations, that abortions in the third trimester after viability are very rare indeed. And they should be. If it ever came to my attention that this was not the case then I would be the first one to argue that there ought to be some sanction against that practice. Yet, there just does not seem to be any evidence that there is a need for that kind of interference at this point.
One member said, and I agree, that we should never be in the situation where, in one wing of the hospital we are striving to save a premature baby and in the other wing of the hospital we are, by virtue of whatever policy we adopt, condoning the termination of the life of foetuses which are at the same stage as those who have been born prematurely.
This is where I am after 10 years of very, very difficult thinking about this. I retain my willingness to be critical of the arguments put forward by both sides in this debate. I think that in many cases, unfortunately, both the pro life and the pro choice positions have been presented in a way which is so symptomatic of our times, as a kind of instant quick-fix solution to problems which run much deeper.
The pro life forces, particularly those who operate from a religious perspective, want to have a world without sin. It cannot be done. Many of the pro choice forces want to have a world without guilt. That cannot be done either. We can have a world in which the privacy, the dignity and the intimacy which women deserve in these kinds of decisions is respected.
November 22, 1989

In the absence of the government coming forward with a bill that really tries to address some of these very difficult issues, particularly issues which I think will have to be addressed down the road with respect to early-stage abortions, when technology permits us to make more choices, not just about whether or not to have a child but what kind of child to have, questions which are not being addressed in this debate and will have to be addressed by people on both sides, sooner or later-
In the meantime, the government having failed to do that, but having succeeded in doing what I think the hon. member from Victoria said so well in coming forward with a bill to protect politicians, something under which a majority of us could huddle for protection from the various groups that have such strong opinions on this, my only alternative is to vote against the bill.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate with mixed emotions. I feel relieved that we are finally seeing legislation introduced on abortion, but I must say that it saddens me deeply that at this juncture in what we believe to be our highly evolved society, we need to be debating whether we should have legislation that provides guidelines for abortion. In my view, and in the view of the majority of my constituents, there is no question guidelines are needed.
In my home province of British Columbia there are 26 abortions for every 100 live births. Yes, guidelines are needed. All members of this House, and in fact most members of the Canadian public are aware of the controversy that surrounds this issue. In fact there have been a great number of court cases involving abortion.
The most recent case that has been decided comes from the Supreme Court of Canada. As members will know, it is the Chantal Daigle case. Although decided on August 8, the court has only recently provided us with the reasons for its decision. Once again, the main message of the court comes through loud and clear. That message states that the responsibility lies on our shoulders. We, the legislators, must take action. The court does not exist to make law. There is no government by
Government Orders
judiciary in Canada. The Supreme Court has not ventured into the realm of making law, but to its credit leaves that to the members who are gathered here. Now we are doing just that.
I am aware that there appears to be a great movement to block any action on this important issue. Once again, common sense is not so common. Nonetheless, that movement is, to my understanding, a vocal minority. The silent majority, whom I believe share my concern, are tired of waiting. They elected us to the House of Commons to take action. That is what we are doing. Some say that Bill C-43 returns us to what we had before the 1988 Supreme Court decision on Morgentaler. Some say that we will have abortion on demand. I disagree. There are three points that must be made clear.
First, by introducing a law that provides guidelines for abortion, the government is indicating that the state has an interest in the foetus.
Second, by avoiding a gestational approach, the government is recognizing that life begins at conception. If this were not the case, then the state would have no reason to regulate abortion.
Third, and most important, I believe that this legislation will stand up to a challenge in the Supreme Court of Canada. The ability to stand up to a court challenge is essential. We presently have no legal guidelines for abortion because the Supreme Court found the previous law to be unconstitutional.
The present situation of no regulation has been recognized as unacceptable. It is tantamount to anarchy. To enact a law that would subsequently fall, if challenged, would be irresponsible as it would simply result in the present anarchic situation. I find the present situation of no legislation to be unacceptable. We need a law to protect the unborn. This bill is that law. It is a step in the right direction. This is true for several reasons. It recognizes that life begins at conception. There has been no attempt at negotiating this point. By avoiding the gestational approach, the government is saying that a foetus, the unborn, is protected by the state and by the law from conception onward.
Because life begins at conception and the state has an interest in that life, the method which exists to unnatu-

Government Orders
rally terminate that life, namely, abortion, is being controlled. This control has not been introduced in a vacuum. On the contrary, the government has learned that the Supreme Court will strike down any unconstitutional laws. Therefore, the government has provided for the rights of the woman by allowing abortion in the cases of physical, mental and psychological threats to the woman's health. This is consistent with the Charter. It does not coerce a woman to bear children under penalty of law. At the same time, it does not allow the woman to have access to abortion on demand. The balance that is apparent in Bill C-43 is consistent with our Constitution. It is not contrary, and if challenged, I believe it will not fall.
I am here in this House today at the behest of the electors of Fraser Valley East. It is only fitting to make reference to the prevailing feeling that exists in my constituency. The people of Fraser Valley East are overwhelmingly on the side of the unborn.
When I stood for election in 1984 and re-election in 1988 I did so on a highly visible platform that included among other things a pro-life component. My beliefs were not secret. The electors of Fraser Valley East knew my record on the issue of abortion. They were well aware of the position I would take and they knew the reasons why. I was not then, nor am I now, a one-issue politician. I made a commitment to influence policy. They accepted that commitment. They knew that I would not change the world. The commitment was made and it has been kept. My constituents know me and they know my position. They voted accordingly and here I am. What is it that they think on this very important issue? Like myself and many other members in this House, they think that life begins at conception. They believe that life is sacred and although concessions are part and parcel of politics there can be no compromise on these principles.
Church and state are separate. The state must be all things to all people. This is what we must hold true if we are to have the understanding and tolerant society we say we desire. This involves being true to certain underlying principles that make the existence of the state possible. Among those principles of tolerance and understanding are the principles of the preservation and sanctity of life.
This is true regardless of religion or the absence thereof. That is why it was so important that this bill did not take the gestational approach. The gestational approach is simply indefensible. It draws an arbitrary dividing line between life, which is worthy of protection and life, which is not. It ignores a primary function of law, the protection of human life. There can be no compromise on the principle of when life begins. The foetus is protected from conception and that is evident in this bill.
In politics and in a plural society we realize that concessions must be made. Reality tells us that compromise is necessary.
The oft-quoted example of the British parliamentarian, William Wilberforce, and his 17-year struggle to abolish slavery stands as testimony to the need and indeed the efficacy of compromise. I might point out that it is compromise on the means not the end. The principle must remain intact.
A gestational approach is unacceptable because it would betray the principles of recognizing that life begins at conception and that life is sacred. This principle has not been compromised and that is why this legislation is a positive step in the right direction. That is why I can support this bill and believe that my constituents, although they might not be completely satisfied with this bill, would accept it. Like William Wilberforce I am willing to fight the good fight for my principles.
Although I can support this bill I do have reservations. I believe the bill would be more effective with more demanding definitions of the kinds of health risks that merit access to abortion. But it is at committee, or report stage, when we must try to strengthen the provisions of this bill and propose suitable amendments.
We need a law to protect the unborn. Having no law is unacceptable because I believe that life does begin at conception. Bill C-43 recognizes this fact. This recognition is the only reason that I can support this legislation. It is for this and the aforementioned reasons that I support this bill and I encourage other members to do likewise. The legislative committee must study this piece of legistative and report back to this House.
November 22, 1989



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, on April 28, I raised questions in the House with the Minister of Finance about the budget leaks. That was a long time ago. Since then charges were laid and the sub judice convention has been applied by the Speaker for the time being. I want to respect that. However, I want to use the opportunity here to make a very important point about the way in which this government sees its responsibility.
What I want to point out through the answers we have received to questions on a number of subjects over the last few months is that the government no longer assumes any responsibility for its moral conduct, for the proper administration of the public affairs, or for the proper discharge of the duties of ministers. The government is not prepared to give any indication of how its own responsibilities are discharged, except in one way, and that is to say if members on this side of the House have any evidence of wrong-doing we should go to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In other words, the conscience of this government has disintegrated and declined to the lowest level of behavior in the country. If it is criminal behaviour, it has nothing to say about it. Its colleagues are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the meanwhile, if we have any evidence that any of them is breaking the law, we should take that to the police.


Mr. Boyer:: It sounds reasonable to me.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Well, it may sound reasonable to the members opposite, but I understood when this present government was elected that it would operate at a level, not only which would be beyond reproach, but which would also appear to be beyond reproach. Ministers would not only behave according to the highest moral standards, which are much higher, by the way, than the
Adjournment Debate
standards of the criminal law, and they would appear to operate by them.
I took that to mean that when a minister or a member of the House came under a legitimate cloud of suspicion that the minister or the member would do the honourable thing while matters were being investigated, and not necessarily only those on a criminal basis. It could well simply be a breach of an undertaking, or conduct legal but unbecoming a member of the government. In that connection, I think that the public administration of Canada has deteriorated enormously under this government.
I asked about the budget leak and whether there was a state of sloppiness existing around security in the preparation of the budget. I was not necessarily talking about criminal behaviour. I did not know whether a crime had been committed in the way in which the budget was prepared and the level of security that was applied to it. I was simply asking whether the standard of security in the operations of the Queen's Printer, under the responsibility of standards which cover a number of ministries, were adequate. That is a simple question. It is not asking for a criminal investigation. The answer that I got on April 28 was: "Investigations are being conducted, Mr. Speaker, and it is entirely inappropriate to comment on them in this House". That was the answer on April 28.
Today I read a Canadian Press release, reported in nearly every newspaper in Canada, including The Globe and Mail which states:
Budget leak investigation ended.
The RCMP has concluded all its investigations into the leak of Finance Minister Michael Wilson's budget and does not plan to lay any more charges.
Federal Solicitor-General Pierre Blais told reporters-
-(that he did not know whether the investigations were still under way).
But Sergeant Pierre Belanger, an RCMP spokesman, said-" We have no evidence of any wrongdoing. No charges will be laid".
The excuse for not answering my question, and I quote again from Hansard: "Investigations are being conducted, Mr. Speaker, and it is entirely inappropriate to comment on them in this House."
Well, I never accepted that answer. Even if I had accepted it, the validity of that answer expires today, November 22, 1989, because according to the RCMP, investigations are now concluded. So I want to ask the representative of the minister the question that I asked which could not be answered as it was answered back in

November 22, 1989
Adjournment Debate
April when the excuse was given that criminal investigations were under way, as if that had everything to do with the question I was asking.
Will the minister confirm that a state of sloppiness existed around the security in the preparation of his budget? On the basis of that sloppy security, will he tell us whether he will recognize his responsibility for it?


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, first let me point out that the member began his remarks by saying that the Speaker has ruled that this subject matter is sub judice. In fact, the Speaker has made two rulings on that. I would have hoped that a former Solicitor General would respect that. It is still sub judice. Nothing has changed and it remains that way.
I do recall, however, that when the member was Solicitor General, he passed an order in council which empowered the government in peace time to release prisoners from penitentiaries who had been convicted of a criminal offence in order to make room for political prisoners who had not been convicted of any offence. A man who passes that kind of an order in council has no authority to talk about morality.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You are insane. I passed no such order in council.


Benno Friesen: Emergency planning orders. You know that. You admitted it in the House.


CANADA POST
Jack Iyerak Anawak: [.Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity tonight to return to the issue of the northern air stage parcel subsidy which I raised in the House on October 27.
For the past several years going back at least to the 1970s, Canada Post has been delivering food stuff and other goods to remote communities in certain provinces and the Northwest Territories. It has been delivering these goods at a rate which is much lower than air freight
rates. This service is known as the northern air stage parcel subsidy.
This service means that northern residents can purchase basic groceries and other essential goods at prices that, while still much higher than what the goods would cost in a southern Canadian city, are still much cheaper than goods delivered under commercial air cargo rates.
Previous governments subsidized Canada Post for providing this service with an annual funding allotment. They did so in order to fulfil an important public policy goal and social objective. Previous governments wanted residents in the northern and most remote parts of Canada to have access to fresh produce, fruits and vegetables and other basic groceries and goods throughout the year at reasonable and affordable prices.
The current Conservative government has abandoned this social policy objective. In 1986, without consultation with northerners, it decided to phase out the subsidy. Since 1986, the subsidy has declined by $1 million a year. The government's intention is to eliminate the subsidy totally within 15 years.
Because the subsidy has been reduced, Canada Post has decided that it must raise the northern air stage parcel rates by an average of 32 per cent. Eighty-five communities in the Northwest Territories and the northern parts of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be hurt by this increase. Twenty-three of those affected communities are in my constituency in the eastern Arctic.
A letter from Arctic Co-Operatives Limited to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, and the minister responsible for Canada Post, says the rate changes will have a devastating effect on the people of the north.
According to the Arctic Co-operatives, this increase means that a case of bread, now $21.49, will increase to $41.30. A case of baby's powder formula, now $13.41, will increase to $41.30. A case of Pampers, now $25.65, will increase to $56.10.
In the community of Broughton Island a loaf of bread now costs $3.45. After the increase, that same loaf of bread is going to cost $4.49. A head of lettuce now costs
November 22, 1989

$4.27. After the increase that lettuce is going to cost $5.55.
Would the members of the government and the officials of Canada Post like to pay almost $6 for a bunch of celery? What about $5 for two pounds of carrots? Even with their high salaries they would find it difficult. For the people in these remote northern communities where unemployment rates are 50 per cent and higher and most people are on fixed incomes, these prices are absolutely beyond reach. People will not be able to feed their families properly. People, including children, are going to go without. There will be health consequences and severe emotional and financial hardship and stress placed on families. These will be the results of this callous and heartless government position.
On November 2 I attended a meeting with officials from Canada Post, Indian and Northern Affairs, Health and Welfare and the hon. member from Abitibi. Also at that meeting were representatives from northern Indian and Inuit communities and groups. The meeting ended with a request from aboriginal representatives for a moratorium of one year on the proposed rate increase.
Late that evening, Canada Post issued a press release postponing the implementation of the increase from November 13 to January 31, 1990. Between November 2 and January 31 consultation is to take place with affected parties to minimize the impact of the increase.
The following day, November 3,1 questioned government ministers about the postponement and was told that a working group would be set up to deal with the issues. Since that day, November 3,1 have been trying to get more information on this working group. As of this afternoon, no one could tell me who is chairing the group. For almost three weeks Canada Post and Indian and Northern Affairs have been fighting over who will take the lead role. Canada Post does not want the lead role. It says Indian and Northern Affairs should have it. Indian and Northern Affairs does not want this responsibility. It says the program is Canada Post's.
Since the departments cannot agree on who will lead it, the study group is not yet officially established. Since it is not officially established, it has no terms of reference. The terms of reference will be worked out when the group meets. When will it meet? No one knows
Adjournment Debate
because it has not been officially established. Will there be representatives from the affected northern communities? No one can say because it will have to be discussed when the group meets and no one knows when that will be.
Due to this infighting we have already lost about three weeks of the three months that were supposed to be used for consultation. Who suffers from this delay? Not Canada Post, not Indian and Northern Affairs. But the people of the north.
Three months is too short a time to begin with. Christmas is coming and not much work will get done during the Christmas season. The postponement it seems is just an executioner's delay. Canada Post appears determined to proceed with this increase. It says it cannot continue to provide the service at current rates because of the cut-back to the subsidy.
An acceptable solution will not be found by January 31 without clear and precise political direction from the ministers who are involved. The proposed increase must be stopped, not merely postponed. The government must reverse a decision it took in 1986 to eliminate the subsidy. This increase is not justified. We have had no roads built in the eastern Arctic which would enable us to bring in our groceries more cheaply than by air; our frozen waters will not permit year round shipping. We will not accept a situation where we can have fresh fruit and vegetables during the summer months only when the ships can come in.
The government has no major economic development plans for the eastern Arctic which would increase employment and incomes. With all the tax increases over the past few years and the new proposed goods and services tax scheduled for 1991, northern incomes and standards of living are being further set back, and to put an increase of 32 per cent on basic groceries and foodstuff is absolutely intolerable.
I urge the Ministers of Indian and Northern Affairs, Canada Post and Health and Welfare to go back to their cabinet colleagues. Tell them that you did not realize how devastating this increase would be upon the northern people. Tell them the subsidy must not be eliminated, that it must be maintained at a level that will not result in Canada Post increasing its rates.

November 22, 1989
Adjournment Debate
Tell them that children, single mothers, elderly pensioners, and unemployed youth will suffer the most. Ask them if they are truly willing to reduce the deficit on the backs of these people whose only offence is that they live in the north. Ask them to please put people ahead of profits.


Patrick Boyer: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq has outlined the problem very clearly and he has also discussed tonight what appears to be a problem in getting on with the solution to the problem.
Several points have to be made. First, the role of Canada Post must be to provide delivery services across this country. Beyond that, when we get heavily into social policy, that rightly falls to other areas. I noted in the conclusion of the member's remarks, when he was talking about the impact of this decision with respect to the northern air stage rate increases, that this was going to be on the backs of the elderly, single mothers and so on.
I understand the concerns. The member speaks very eloquently about them, but I do not believe those are matters that fall within the ambit of Canada Post and they are much more correctly dealt with under other government programs. That is the reason that a joint or interdepartmental committee has been proposed. Two months remain before the rate increases go into effect. I would hope that is time enough for all the interested parties to get together. The hon. member says that time has already gone by before this committee has found which table it is sitting at and who is going to be bringing down the gavel as chairman. I submit to him and to those he represents that already since this announcement was made by the government on November 2 there is a delay in the increase until the end of January. This is to provide time for consultation with northerners so that those in the north and others have an opportunity to get their suggestions and proposals together. I am sure that his intervention in the House tonight is going to accelerate the process of getting that committee struck and I do think it will also be an opportunity for some of the uncertainty about this to be clarified.
I know the hon. member speaks on all his examples in graphic terms specifically about the increase of items at the retail level. In fact, the proposed rate increase will be
applied of the basis of the per kilogram weight and whether that translates into the price increases that have been described in the House tonight is something that is going to have to be reviewed by this committee.
The issue is an important one. The reality of northern distribution of goods and services, and this is not through a service that is like the distribution of parcels normally through Canada Post but the special operation of northern air stage, is a unique service for a unique part of Canada. That is why the government has held back on the effort to try to have the post office in all parts of Canada from coast to coast pay its way and be responsible in delivery of services to people but with all Canadians, wherever they live, paying their fair share. It is never easy, but I hope with the co-operation of the hon. member and certainly the impetus that he has given tonight to get this interdepartmental committee moving that we can get a good result in a balanced way.
TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS/EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I rise following a question which I put on October 25 to the Minister of State for Transport. It deals with the transportation on B.C. ferries of hazardous materials and, in particular, PCBs. This issue was first raised in August by the President of the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers Union, Lee Cochrane. It had come to the attention of the union that PCBs and other dangerous goods were being carried on B.C. passenger ferries, and that this was happening without any inspection to see whether the regulations were being complied with.
It emerged that, in fact, the Department of Transport had imposed restrictions and conditions on the transportation of dangerous cargoes on passenger ferries 18 months ago. But it also was quickly conceded by the regional people that, in fact, they did not have the staff to see whether the conditions were even being complied with. There was apparently no requirement being placed on terminal agents and others to ensure that when a truck carrying a dangerous cargo or PCBs came on a B.C. ferry that the regulations were being complied with. No notice was being given and nothing was happening to see that these very detailed lists of conditions were being met.
November 22, 1989

When I asked the minister about this back toward the end of October, the minister's reply was that we have great conditions, we have checked them all out and the conditions and restrictions are adequate, which of course, missed the point. The point was not the adequacy of the conditions. The point was the adequacy of the enforcement of the conditions.
The matter then got raised in the Auditor General's report, because as it happens the Auditor General was digging into this very situation. In his report this year he came through with a devastating attack on Transport Canada for precisely this point and others, namely, that there was not sufficient staff to inspect dangerous cargoes on ferries.
What we are looking at here is trying to prevent a disaster before it happens. This is not a partisan issue. This is one which I am sure the department is as concerned about as we are on this side of the House. What we have here is a failure on the part of Treasury Board and others in government to ensure that personnel resources are available to inspect and ensure that these regulations are being maintained.
One would have thought after all that the department would have got the message. Just the other day I received a letter from the Minister of Transport, and the minister replies finally to my September 15 letter. I received this in my office on November 1, 1989. In this reply all we got was the same old stuff: "I must emphasize that the conditions imposed were more stringent than those required by the IMDG Code or the Dangerous Goods Shipping Regulations. The Canadian Coast Guard is enforcing all such regulatory requirements." That is just not true. It is not enforcing the requirements.
What I would ask the parliamentary secretary to do is to at least acknowledge an understanding of the problem and assure the people of Vancouver Island and those who travel on B.C. Ferries-and this issue probably applies to other ferries across Canada, but we know it applies on the coast-that the government understands the problem, that the problem is grasped by the department, that there is some plan in motion to try to get the necessary inspection resources in place, that the government is going to inform B.C. Ferries staff, or require that they be informed before these shipments take place, and that there is going to be some system of inspection. The Auditor General said that the only inspections that take place are kind of annual inspections. The ferries and
Adjournment Debate
others are warned they are coming and that is all that happens. But there are no unpredictable spot visits.
You have had notice of this. What we ask is that the department at least acknowledge this and say that something is going to be done. In the meantime, lift the permission. No hardship is going to occur if for a two or three-month period permission to transport on passenger ferries is lifted because there are other ways of getting dangerous goods back and forth from Vancouver Island. They can be carried on non-passenger vessels.
So please, we ask, that you at least acknowledge the problem and give the people of Vancouver Island some assurance that this matter is going to be dealt with.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this House on the important issue raised by the hon. member for Victoria on the adequacy of the Coast Guard program to ensure that dangerous goods are safely carried on passenger ferries.
First, let me state that the health and safety of the travelling public remains a top priority of this government. With this in mind, Coast Guard inspection procedures are constantly being reviewed to ensure that marine transportation of dangerous goods in Canadian waters are effectively and efficiently controlled and monitored.
In his report, the Auditor General made specific references to the dangerous goods inspections, procedures currently being employed by the Coast Guard on vessels of either Canadian or foreign registry. The transportation of dangerous goods by any mode is subject to very strict regulations. Under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act anyone transporting dangerous goods in defiance of the act is breaking the law.
The transportation of packaged dangerous goods by ferry is regulated by both the dangerous goods shipping regulations made under the Canada Shipping Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and regulations.
The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and the regulations address the classifications, marking and documentation requirements, while the dangerous goods shipping regulations address the stowage and segregation of dangerous goods aboard the ferry.
The Auditor General has noted in his report that we do investigate and conduct inspections on ferries when some specific concern exists and random inspections are also conducted.
The Coast Guard also conducts training courses for senior officers and shore management officials to ensure a full and complete knowledge of regulatory

November 22, 1989
Adjournment Debate
requirements, including particularly reference to the types of dangerous goods prohibited on passenger ferries and those other dangerous goods that may be subject to stowage restrictions. In addition, Coast Guard inspectors are available to provide advice and guidance to ferry safety supervisors.
The department will continue to work closely with other jurisdictions to continue to improve upon the safe transportation of dangerous goods. It should be pointed out that the Auditor General stated that the Coast
Guard's mandatory inspection of safety features, regulations and examinations of mariners is well organized and well carried out.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 23, 1989