1989-11-28

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 27, 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.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I too stand here today to speak on Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion. I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill. I do not assume to be any different from any of the other legislators in this House, in the approach used in reaching a conclusion on this very complex issue. I must give thanks to the hundreds of my Nepean constituents who have corresponded with me over the past few months, expressing their opinion on abortion. They have been most helpful. In the absence of the bill, those correspondents addressed abortion generally. Now that Bill C-43 is before us, a different set of opinions is coming forward.
Every one of us entering this abortion debate brings a different idea of the meaning of life and the purpose of our existence. This debate has nothing to do with what I personally think about this issue. This debate, being held in the House of Commons, must centre around the legislation which we, as legislators, must implement.
Like most married women, I am a mother, a mother of five and a grandmother of two. I never had to make a decision as to whether or not they were wanted children. They were all automatically wanted children. That obviously places me very much on the side of life.
Interestingly enough, I have discovered that no one likes abortion, regardless of which side of the issue they fall into.
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? The government has an obligation to present legislation that delineates purpose and direction. Bill C-43 does not give us a compromise, it does not give us a solution. I believe that this bill is intellectually disgraceful and constitutionally dishonest. In my estimation, the bill neither addresses the rights of the foetus nor the rights of the woman. As the Citizens for Public Justice stated: "To introduce a pro-life amendment to the Criminal Code without social policy changes will not adequately protect human life."
"To give women legal rights to abortion without social policy changes means that many woman have few effective choices, other than abortion". We as a society need legislation and we need regulation. However, it saddens me that this bill will come under the Criminal Code. It saddened me to hear a member of this House say a few days ago: "Women who abort must be punished". I say that women must be supported, not punished, when her behaviour is contrary to what that person feels is right.
The issue at hand is how do you protect the unborn and how do you protect the mother? I believe we are attacking this issue from the wrong direction.
Let us address the whys and the wherefores of abortion. There is absolutely no support system in place, a system that would ensure counselling at the outset, moral support, financial support, assurances that adoption procedures are available. Fifty per cent of abortions are performed on young women under 25 years of age. Why are we not looking at ways to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies and to cope with these pregnancies when they occur? Why are we not dealing with women caught in the poverty trap? Why are we not

Government Orders
addressing housing? Why are we not addressing the victims of rape and incest?
I would like to suggest that if we address the social aspect of pregnancies and subsequent abortions, that the present 60,000 annual abortions would most likely be reduced by two-thirds.
Health regulation is predominantly within provincial jurisdiction. Although it has been argued that the federal government should use the spending power under the Canada Health Act to enforce equality of access and funding, it would appear the federal government feels that it is impossible to address access and funding in criminal legislation.
I note that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources comments that Bill C-43 is: "The best the government could do. The best the House could do. The best that society could do on this issue at this time". I believe that Bill C-43 is second best.
We are presently living in a country that allows abortion on demand. I cannot support that approach either, but neither can I support legislation criminalizing women. It is unacceptable to create abortion legislation without creating legislation that assures adequate resources to both women and children. Women and the unborn deserve better than Bill C-43.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-43. Like many of my colleagues, I can say that it is one of the most difficult questions that I as a member of Parliament have had to deal with in the 10 years I have been here.
I rise today to make a plea to colleagues, notwithstanding the powerful conviction they may have about this issue, notwithstanding the passion they may feel on this issue to at least allow the process of a substantive debate in Canada on the question of abortion to proceed. I respect the views of all those who have spoken because I know this is a difficult question. It is one that goes right to the heart of notion of conscience, individual conscience of a member of Parliament.
Personally I have some difficulty, notwithstanding my personal feelings on a abortion, with the notion that perhaps a majority of members, with the best of intentions, with the most pristine notions in mind, may put an end to a long overdue substantive discussion on abortion
by defeating Bill C-43 at this stage without giving this Parliament, and through Parliament the people of Canada, an opportunity to engage in a debate on this question by way of committee.
In the 10 years that I have been in Parliament the number of times this issue has come up, it has come up primarily as a consequence of somebody who can be described as either pro-choice or pro-life making a 60-second statement before Question Period. There can be no rebuttal, no debate, no exchange of views, and no real attempt in that process to understand each other or even to persuade, but rather it is an opportunity to put a particular position on the record. That is what has happened for 10 years. In doing that, members have either put their own personal point of view on the record, or as some have said, they believe that they are representing the point of view of the majority of then-constituents.
However, we have not had in this place a real discussion, an opportunity to hear witnesses representing every point of view, or to call upon the best legal minds in Canada and to try to consider and understand what the legal implications are of this bill vis-a-vis the Supreme Court decisions that have already been made or what other propositions might be.
Personally, this bill is not the route that I would have preferred. I would have preferred something different. I would like an opportunity through the committee process to see whether or not that something different-and I can tell you that it is the gestational approach-might have an opportunity to find support before a legislative committee of this Parliament.
Notwithstanding my own point of view, it seems to me for members to say today that because the bill does not represent what I want, whatever that point of view might be, I am going to vote against the bill, I am going to end the debate, I am going to stop the discussion, I am going to walk away from this issue and leave it to some future Parliament, some more brilliant, enlightened collection of men and women to deal with, is not acceptable. In my mind, that is simply not an acceptable process.
I respect those who think differently. But I ask those who feel differently to consider what is being contemplated. What is being contemplated is to continue in and outside this place and across this country a sterile debate, a total conflict between two extreme points of view, with no possibility of any substantial discussion, meaningful
November 28, 1989

discussion, communication, listening, understanding; putting yourself in somebody else's shoes, whether you decided they fit or not is not important, at least take a moment to put yourself in them and try to build for Canada on this very difficulty moral question some consensus.
It is quite possible at the end of a legislative process that Parliament and members will be as unhappy as many of them are today about this bill. It is quite possible at the end of a legislative process that I personally will vote against this bill.
Recently, I was a member of a standing committee that used its wisdom to reject a government measure. I refer to the Standing Committee on Transport which rejected the government's decision on VIA Rail. It asked for a moratorium, and said more work needs to be done. Therefore, if I understand the notion of the legislative process and the spirit of parliamentary reform, and have any faith in the process, certainly on a matter of conscience, I believe that it is possible for a legislative committee to act in a totally non-partisan manner, to give this bill its best consideration, to explore in every sense of the word what this bill represents and to possibly propose amendments, some that might find favour in this House.
My difficulty is that if we stop the process because the bill we want is not before us, and defeat the bill at this stage, there is no doubt in my mind that there will not be another bill, and perhaps some people desire that, before this Parliament for many, many years to come.
I am being non-partisan, but certainly the party opposite, and the Minister of Justice, is not going to bring in another bill. Whether we appreciate his effort or not, whether we applaud it or not, this is the minister's best effort. It is not the bill that I would have drafted but I did not have the job. If we at least do not take it to the legislative process, I can tell you this government will not bring in another bill. Let me go farther. I speak for myself only. That would not surprise me, nor would I particularly blame them. I believe if there were-thankfully for the people of Canada-an election next week and a new administration sworn in, it is questionable whether that new administration, if this bill were de-
Govemment Orders
feated at this stage and did not even make the legislative process, would bring in a new piece of legislation.
At the end of the day none of us can predict if we will have a piece of legislation that the House can support. I cannot say, nor can any member, based on going through the legislative process, when, presumably, amendments are made or suggested, that the bill that goes into the legislative process will bear any resemblance to the one that comes out. None of us can predict at the end of the day what a legislative committee will do. What anyone who has been here for any period of time can predict is, if we kill the bill at this stage, no matter what one's individual point of view, or the point of view of his or her constituents, there will be no other legislation.
I think that the Minister of Justice will be in a powerful position and, indeed, the government and the Prime Minister will be in a powerful position to say that we gave it our best judgment, we sought what we thought was the most reasonable consensus, whether or not it is a reasonable consensus, whether or not it is deemed to be good judgment. The House of Commons has taken a decision not even to take it to committee, not even to debate the matter further, rejected it out of hand, and not exercised the process available to us. We at this stage believe we have no other obligation, we have discharged our duties. We have put a proposal before Parliament. Parliament has refused not to approve or disapprove it, but even consider it.
I submit to members that that is a fundamental responsibility of parliamentarians. That is why we fight here with great passion, especially members of the opposition and members on the back-benches on the government side, for the independence or growing independence or increased independence of committees. We claim it is absolutely vital to our work that we have an opportunity to consider government bills with a measure of independence; that we have an opportunity at the end of the day to make up our own minds and to make objective recommendations back to Parliament. We claim that we must have the opportunity, if we want, in committee to practically rewrite government legislation, or dramatically alter it, if the word Parliament is to mean something, and if the role of the individual member beyond that of supporting a party chief is to mean something. If the role of elected representatives beyond being a member of their caucus is to mean something, there has to be beyond the glare, the glitter and the glamour of Question Period, some place for us

November 28, 1989
Government Orders
to exercise our best judgment, and to give us the opportunity, notwithstanding party stripes or caucuses, to persuade each other and to find out if, on occasion, notwithstanding ideological differences, there is common ground.
If we at this stage defeat this bill we have turned our back on all of that. We have said that we only believe in the legislative process and the role of a member of Parliament independent of the leadership and independent of his caucus only when it is convenient.
If this bill is sent on to the legislative committee it is going to be a very difficult process for all those who participate. It is going to be by extension a very tough process for all those who observe or participate indirectly, or have to deal with the recommendations of a committee. But that is our job.
I am not pleading for the bill. I am not pleading that this bill be passed or accepted today as it currently stands, but I do make a plea for colleagues to take a chance on launching us beyond a sterile debate in which we get as different as day and night, black and white, conflicting views on this question hurled across the floor by members in 60 seconds, and a sterile debate from which there is no resolution. We may not find a resolution this time but at least let us not walk away from the opportunity to have as members on behalf of Canadians an opportunity for a full debate.
My plea today is for members to take advantage of the process that we have for ordinary members. I am one. I have no special privileges or titles. I am not an officer of this place. It will enable members to have an opportunity to participate in an important debate, and to give back to this House a recommendation, which may be this one or it may be dramatically different, that represents the best judgment of members when they have gathered, when they are conscientious and want to do good work on behalf of the people of Canada.
I hope this bill is supported when it comes up next for a vote.


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, I do understand that there are a couple of members who have been caught by the weather coming in from the airport and are having
difficulties getting here. We did want to make sure that they would have an opportunity to speak.
Perhaps the House could agree to adjourn to the call of the Chair until we can send signals to the Speaker that these members have arrived. We can still proceed with the House order and have the Prime Minister speak at eleven o'clock without having to worry about quorum calls.


Mr. Gauthier:: I would like to agree with that disposition, although I do not think we should adjourn. I think we should suspend the sitting which would be easier in procedural terms.
I understand we have a speaker who is presently in a taxi, but the streets are quite slippery, it is raining outside and he is having difficulty getting here. As soon as he arrives, I would appreciate if the House would reconvene and we continue with the debate.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion put by the parliamentary secretary, supported by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, and I take it supported by the New Democratic Party is that we suspend until I receive a message to resume debate.
Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting to the call of the bell?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.30 a.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 11.05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, the sitting was suspended for some minutes due to inclement weather and the difficulties some members were having in reaching the House. The debate is now resuming.
I recognize the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this has been a difficult debate for all hon. members, but it has been edifying for those who value the institution of Parliament. I respect the integrity of all those who preceded me. Their arguments have been principled and, I thought, persuasive.
November 28, 1989

There can be few questions on which views are as strongly or as deeply held. Some believe there should be no impediment to abortion. Others believe abortion should be severely restricted. Both of these positions have been advanced in this debate, sometimes passionately, but always with the clear, true ring of personal sincerity and conviction.

As individuals, my cabinet colleagues and I feel no less intensely than other Hon. Members about these questions. Indeed, some ministers, speaking in this debate in support of the bill, have properly taken the occasion to state their own personal conscientious views on the subject of abortion. Ministers, however, have an added responsibility.
In a situtation such as we now face, we must provide leadership. We must achieve a solution that is philosophically sound, constitutionally correct, politically acceptable and administratively practicable; that is, a solution which can be understood and implemented. Our duty is to act for the common good.

The government accepts its responsibility. On this matter we ask all members of Parliament to share in that responsibility.
[.Editor's Note: Disturbance in gallery.]


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister has the floor.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to say that I do not seek to change anyone's personal conscientious views on abortion. With regard to some people, it is unlikely that anyone would ever succeed. What is important, what is absolutely indispensable, is that all members of the House have the right to rise in their places and to speak for or against this resolution and to be listened to carefully, and with respect by all other members at all times.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is what explains the simple magnificence of Parliament. That is what election to the House of Commons brings. We are called upon as best we can, products that we are of our own environments,
Government Orders
to come together to resolve great national issues. We do it based on respect for one another, respect for one another's deeply held religious and moral views, and we do it always by listening carefully to one another and respecting one another's opinions.
What we heard a few moments ago is the antithesis of Parliament, and parliamentary democracy must resist that. That is why this House of Commons must always be supreme.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I do not seek to change anyone's personal conscientious views on abortion. Rather I ask that you consider joining me in exercising leadership, in achieving balance, in finding a workable legislative solution to this problem in the national interest.
Almost two years have passed since the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Section 251 of the Criminal Code. All three majority judgments of the court concurred that the abortion law was a violation of the guarantee of security of the person and the principles of fundamental justice in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 251 of the Criminal Code had been the law of the land on abortion for 19 years. If hon. members think that the question is difficult today, and it is, they should spare a thought or two for our predecessors of 20 years ago in this House, some of whom are still with us, who had to legislate for the first time the conditions under which abortion would be legal in this country.

Nobody speaks with more authority on the subject than the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition who was Minister of Justice in 1969. It is he who brought in the law that we are seeking to replace today. Twenty years ago, near the close of a long and emotional debate, he appealed to the House in these words:
I realize full well that this matter goes right to the essence of life,
goes right to the bone. There is not going to be any consensus on
this issue in the House or in the country. We have not reached a
consensus.
He went on to say:
We have only reached what I might call an accommodation.
That was the position of the Leader of the Official Opposition, 20 years ago. He was quite right.

November 28, 1989
Government Orders
On November 8, when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke in this debate, he used words almost identical to those he had used in 1969, and I quote from page 5728 of Hansard:
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 think the Leader of the Opposition was right again. He was right 20 years ago, and he was right again this autumn. Parliament must again find what he accurately described as an accommodation. Canada requires that this be done, and it must be done now.
There is no denying at all that Canadian society has changed a great deal since 1969. Our law, our Constitution and many of our attitudes to social and moral questions have changed. Many of them changed for the better.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms expresses many of the values Canadians cherish as individuals and as a nation. The courts review the compatibility of our laws with the Charter in the light of changing times and circumstances.
In light of the Charter and in light of the times, the considerations that the Supreme Court of Canada tried to balance in the decision on abortion are very relevant. I think they should be repeated briefly today.
First, there is the right of a woman to security of her person. Second, there is the right of a woman to obtain medical services without limits that adversely affect her health. Third, there is the interest of society in protecting the health of the woman; and, of course, the interest of society in protecting the foetus.

In the bill that is now before the House, the government has sought to achieve a balance among those very valid considerations. We and our legal advisers have studied the Supreme Court judgments with the greatest care and respect. And we have drafted a law which we firmly believe is constitutional. We have tried to achieve a balance among the views held in Parliament and in public opinion. Most important, we have tried to fill the legal void created by the Supreme Court decision in January 1988.
Various interest groups, some with extreme views, as we saw this morning, others with much more moderate views, have rushed into that void.
Some provincial governments, in exercising their own constitutional responsibility for health, have tried to fill the void themselves by legislative or administrative action. And pregnant women and putative fathers have fought out their personal differences in the courts and the media, in a manner that at times brought both concern and sadness to the nation. We cannot allow such scenes to be repeated.

It is the proper role of government to restore certainty to this important social issue. It is our duty as legislators to assume our responsibilities to reconcile the often conflicting principles at play, to fill the legal void and to put an end to the vagaries of using particular cases to settle judicial rules.
It is now our duty as legislators to convey to the court the view of Parliament so that judges will know before they rule on individual cases how the members of this elected House of Commons feel collectively.
What does this mean in a country like ours with our vastly different ethnic and religious backgrounds, and disparate regional and local views? Ours is a society that values tolerance because it is the key to our integrity as a nation. Tolerance requires sensitivity to diverse interests and beliefs. Tolerance accepts that a balance must be struck in our national life.
The challenge that the government faces is to achieve a new law on abortion that balances divergent and sometimes even incompatible views, interests, beliefs and, in some cases, customs. I now appeal to hon. members in the spirit of tolerance to accept this law, to pass this law in the interests of all Canadians.
This bill is not long or complex. Its provisions have been explained cogently and I think fully by the Minister of Justice.
Let me say a brief word about the philosophical basis of the bill. It comes back again to the very important and vital question of balance. Life is deserving of protection throughout the pregnancy, but a woman has full constitutional rights to security of the person. Failure to respect her rights would make any law unconstitutional.
November 28, 1989

That much is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court.
I suppose that opinion is more polarized in this House of Commons on this issue than it is in the country, and that is, I think, very understandable. As candidates for Parliament, most of us have been pressed to take a stand on one side or the other of the issue, not as it really is, not in all of its sensitivity and its complexity, but as it has been defined by the various protagonists, "pro-choice" or " pro-life". All of us know how simplistic and unfair these labels are, and how inadequate they are in expressing the complexity of the issues involved and the factors which weigh upon the private conscience and the public duty of a Member of Parliament.
Let me, however, address all of those colleagues, a large majority I suspect for whom this bill does not represent the ideal.
Let me speak first to those hon. members who would describe themselves or be described as on the "pro-life" side of the debate. We have heard and understood your fundamental conscientious opposition to what is sometimes referred to as a gestational approach. We have tried to accommodate, to use the felicitous term of the Leader of the Opposition, your concern.
This bill makes no distinction as to life at any stage of development. The protection for life throughout the pregnancy is that of a qualified medical opinion on grounds of health according to the accepted standards of the medical profession. This provision and these standards are not perfunctory and the leaders of the medical profession have made it very clear that they do not regard these principles as such.
Still, this is not the very restricted access to abortion that some would have preferred. It is, nonetheless, an approach offering consistent protection throughout the pregnancy. We have gone as far in this direction as constitutional constraints permit.
Let me speak briefly to those hon. members who would describe themselves as on the "pro-choice" side of the debate. This bill declares that abortion is a health matter to be decided between a woman and her doctor on grounds of physical, mental or psychological health.
The law will be in the Criminal Code because, as the Minister of Justice has pointed out, the Criminal Code is
Government Orders
the only tool by which the federal government can develop directly a framework within which abortion can be provided.
Suggestions that Parliament could use the Canada Health Act to regulate abortion are in the view of every one of our legal advisers highly dubious in a constitutional sense. The Canada Health Act cannot provide abortion or other medical services. It provides only for a financial penalty against those provinces that fail to observe the four fundamental conditions for the application of medicare.
So I ask those who are concerned about protecting the rights and the dignity and the health of women to consider the importance of this bill in providing leadership to those provincial governments which have jurisdiction for the delivery of health services and which, in some cases, would seek to deliver services in a manner inconsistent with the collective views of the members of this House.
I draw to your attention recent comments of Mr. Justice Allan Linden, the distinguished chairman of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, as reported on November 7. "Recriminalizing abortion," Mr. Justice Linden said, "was needed to ensure that various provinces did not enact Draconian laws to restrict access to the procedure."
"What always concerned me," he said, "was the prospect of provincial intrusions. By making abortion a therapeutic procedure covered by the Criminal Code, the provinces will find it much more difficult to jump in with their own legislation and evade their obligations under the Canada Health Act to pay for medical services-"
I think Mr. Justice Linden makes an extremely valid and important point. Nobody sought to recriminalize the question of abortion for the pleasure of doing it. It was brought under the purview of the Criminal Code because of legal imperatives in terms of application nationally.
Moreover, this bill does not treat women as criminals for seeking a therapeutic abortion. On the contrary, this bill provides penalties only for those who induce an abortion illegally, that is, anyone other than a qualified practitioner.

November 28, 1989
Government Orders

This bill does not provide for abortion on demand. It does require a medical opinion in addition to the decision of the woman, on health grounds. I think this is a logical consequence of treating abortion as a health matter, as it should be.
Regarding the availability of abortions to women who need them, this bill, by providing a national framework, sends the provinces a signal that should clarify their approach and assist them in the provision of abortion as a medical service. This can only improve access and it is the most immediately effective way for the federal government to do so within our constitutional authority.
Mr. Speaker, this bill represents our best effort to legislate an acceptable solution to the problem Canada has faced since the Supreme Court decision of January 1988.

If this bill does not succeed, it is hard to see what other bill could win the approval of the House and survive a challenge before the courts. It is highly unlikely that we could return to the issue with any prospect of success before another general election is held.
There are disappointed members on either side of the issue who may be tempted to vote against it. Some might prefer to wait until the chances are better for a stronger pro-life bill. Others might believe that the absence of any federal law on abortion favours the pro-choice viewpoint.
I disagree with both of these perspectives, because the imperatives at issue preclude any one-sided outcome to this debate. The outcome clearly must balance the rights of women to security of the person and the interest of society in protecting the foetus.
The absence of a federal law on abortion as we saw last summer satisfies only one of these imperatives and as such is unacceptable to the majority of Canadians.

The message most of us have been getting from Canadians with increasing insistence since last summer is that Parliament must act. The designation of abortion as a medical act is, alone, a reason of the utmost significance, impelling us to act. It would be unconscionable and intolerable to fail to restrict those who are unqualified, and who are not health professionals, from terminating a pregnancy.

We are urged to act on this matter in different ways, but there is no doubt whatsoever that people expect us to end the current unacceptable situation. They want us to accept our responsibility and bring in a new abortion law.
[Editor's Note: Disturbance in gallery.]


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could assist the House. As hon. members know, there has been a disturbance; not a difficult matter, but a disturbance. Objects have been thrown into the Chamber. We have cleared the gallery. I just want to advise all hon. members that I have also sent word up that in a moment or two, now that the difficulty is over, we will allow, of course, the public back into the gallery.


The Right Hon. Prime  Minister.Mr. Mulroney@: Mr. Speaker, earlier, in an effort to reflect the status of this matter as a question of conscience, I referred to a free vote in this House, a series of options to resolve the legislative dilemma resulting from the Supreme Court's decision in Morgentaler. Each of these options failed in turn to muster a majority, leaving us no better off than when we began.
Further delay is unacceptable. Parliament must act and it must act now.
We in this House cannot solve the moral dilemma of the problem of abortion; nor can we substitute our judgment for the judgment of those many Canadian women who must weigh health and family considerations in reaching their decisions. They have my genuine consideration and deep respect.
And while all decisions in politics have moral implications and each of us tries to bring an informed conscience to the exercise of our public duty, no one in this House has been appointed an arbiter of anyone else's personal morality.
Many of us have been brought up to believe, and do believe, that abortion under almost any circumstances is morally wrong. But what we are called upon to do, as elected representatives of the people, is to determine under what circumstances the state should characterize abortion not as a sin, but as a crime. This power is one
November 28, 1989

that lawmakers should always exercise with the utmost care and restraint.
The bill before us is philosophically sound; it is constitutionally valid; it is workable; it achieves balance and is fair. It is credible and just and will therefore be respected.

My colleagues and I are also convinced that this bill comes closer than any practical alternative to reflecting the position of the clear majority of Canadians who reject extremes and favour a moderate and balanced solution.

This new bill permits the most complex personal, moral and medical decisions to be made by a woman in privacy and dignity, free of coercion or undue sanctions by the state. In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to all hon. members to support this bill. Let us together provide the leadership that Canadians expect of us today and need of us in the decades to come.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if members could give the Chair a moment's attention. We have had, as I said a moment ago, an interruption in the Chamber. I want to make it very clear that in view of what happened-and I hasten to assure all members and the public that there has been no harm done-it was necessary to clear the gallery for security purposes. The gallery was cleared quietly and those members of the public who were in the gallery co-operated completely with our security officials. Shortly after the Prime Minister resumed his speech some members of the public, of course, came back in, as I had ordered that they be allowed to do.
I do want all hon members to understand that on your behalf I have to take into consideration security matters. I hasten to advise all hon. members and the public that no harm was done. As soon as the precautions that are necessary had been taken, the public was re-admitted to the gallery and some members of the public did come back in before the Right Hon. Prime Minister finished his speech.
Government Orders
Again, we are mindful of our great traditions. It took us many centuries to be able to debate and to speak freely without interruption. Again, I hasten to add that there has been no harm done. I thank all hon. members for their co-operation and forbearance. I think hon. members would want to join with me in thanking our security officials for their quiet but efficient, courteous and effective treatment of the situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Thursday, November 23, 1989, the question on the motion for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-43 is deemed to have been put and a recorded division thereon deferred until 1 p.m. later today.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Thursday, November 23, 1989, the sitting is suspended until 1 o'clock p.m.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.43 a.m. SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 1 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 1 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, November 23, 1989-

The House will now proceed with the deferred recorded division on the motion for second reading reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-43, An Act respecting abortion.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the bells having ceased to ring:
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members, I think that considering this afternoon's subject, it is probably appropriate for the Chair to explain the exact procedure for the division. It will be the same as for an ordinary government bill. To be more specific, first the yeas-

November 28, 1989
Government Orders

-for the government, followed by the Official Opposition, followed by the New Democratic Party, followed by the Independent member.
For the nays, it will start with Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the New Democratic Party, the Independent member and then to the government members.

I would ask hon. members to pay attention.

If there is any doubt, I ask that hon. members to consult immediately with their House Leader. If there needs to be further explanation I will give it, but I take it that members understand the voting procedure. I shall go slowly and I do not think we should have any difficulty.
I repeat, on the yeas we will start on the government side. We will go to the Official Opposition, then to the New Democratic Party and then to the Independent member.
On the nays, we should go first of all to the Official Opposition, then to the New Democratic Party, then to the Independent member and then to the government side.
The hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very short point of order to seek clarification. Members of the House are about to decide whether or not to give second reading to Bill C-43. I have heard many of my colleagues say in debate that while they oppose the principle of the bill, they wish to have the abortion bill studied by a House committee and for this reason they will vote in favour of the bill today.
It is my understanding that a vote in favour of this bill will commit the House to the exact principles of Bill C-43, that once we have adopted this bill the committee will be constrained to making it either a bill-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops will understand that the Speaker is put in a position of some difficulty. The hon. member had given me notice that he might raise this question.

However, there is a problem for the Chair. There is clearly a problem, since a discussion about the bill at this stage, of course, becomes a discussion about the subject of the bill.

It is not appropriate to get into a discussion now, even on the basis of a point of order, that tends to be, however subtlely, a furtherance of the debate that has taken place for a number of days.

The subject of this bill is a very difficult one for all members and probably for most people in this country. That is why the Chair must remain very firm about the rules of procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Thursday, November 23, 1989, the sitting is suspended until three o'clock this afternoon.
The sitting was suspended at 1.42 p.m.
++NAYS
Members
Anawak
Arseneault
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Barrett
Berger
Black
Blaikie
Brewin
Butland
Callbeck
Catterall
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dingwall
Do mm
Ferguson
Flis
Foster
Funk
Gardiner
Guarnieri
Harvard
Heap
Hovdebo
Johnson
Jourdenais
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacLellan


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 3 p.m.

Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, blaming the victim in Canada has reached a new level of insanity. In British Columbia, a County Court judge gave a suspended sentence to an adult male convicted of sexually assaulting a three-year old girl. Why? Because, according to the judge, the child was "sexually aggressive".
All Canadians join in revulsion at this perversion of our system of justice. If a three-year old child can be blamed, what hope do adult females have for justice and the protection of the law? While women have always been dubbed the seductresses in cases of rape, this incident brings the inequality of the sexes beyond the ridiculous.
All decent Canadians demand a judicial council inquiry into this matter immediately. For far too many years far too many judges in this country have failed to make

the distinction between victim and offender in cases of sexual assault.
Now it appears that we must also fight to prove that children, in addition to women, do not want to be assaulted and do not ask to be raped.


ABORTION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps no professional group has as much at stake at the outcome of the abortion issue as do nurses across our land. They must deal with the issue of abortion directly and take part in an act most find abhorrent and repugnant.
I received during the past week petitions with the names of 4,417 nurses in Ontario alone who are Nurses for Life. Their specific request is for a conscience clause for nurses, assuring that they have the legal right to refuse to participate in abortions.
While such a clause would fall under the purview of the provincial government, the presentation of so many petitions from Nurses for Life at this most important time should not be ignored. It is a signal that there are some in the field of medicine who support life and abhor the idea of aiding and abetting the taking of an innocent life.


FOREST MANAGEMENT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Government's policies on forestry are similar to those that are sapping the Third World of its resources. It is imperative that those policies be thoroughly revised, with public input to reflect the interest of the public.
That was the position taken by Monsignor Gerard Drainville, Bishop of Amos, in Abitibi, at the Quebec forum on sustainable development. The forum is a high level meeting, organized with the co-operation of the Government of Quebec, to determine ways of reconciling economic interests with the imperatives of maintaining nature's balance.
He said, quite frankly, that because of clear cutting by the paper companies, people in many small towns and villages were being increasingly deprived of the benefits of their own forest resources.


NUCLEAR WASTE
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw to the attention of the government that a nuclear waste disposal site is being planned for the State of Michigan in the U.S. All three potential sites on the short list are in close proximity to and would drain into Lake Superior, the St. Clair River, or Lake Erie.
The United States Government which licenses nuclear power stations within the United States has turned the responsibility for disposal over to the various states as part of its deregulation process. As a result of this deregulation, seven mid-western states have grouped together to establish one site for the seven states. Michigan has been selected as the host state for the first 20 years.
A citizen of St. Clair County, Michigan, wrote to me to ask for help to stop this potential hazard to the world's largest supply of fresh water and our food chain. Fifteen nuclear reactors located across those seven states will use this disposal site. Of the six commercial radioactive waste dumps to date now in existence in the United States, he points out that four are already leaking.
I call on the government and the Minister of the Environment to contact the authorities responsible for this irresponsible environmentally disastrous planning and to ask them to stop the development of these new sites that will threaten millions of people on both sides of our border in the Great Lakes basin.


AUTISM WEEK
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the first week of December, December 3 to December 9, is Autism Week in Canada.
Autism was only relatively recently recognized as a separate disorder. Anyone who has seen the recent hit



movie The Rain Man might be left with the impression that autism is in some ways amusing. However, this would be false.
Autism is a serious and lifelong developmental disability. Canadians and their families who are affected by autism suffer heart-breaking difficulties.
People with autism suffer an inability to form social relationships and have severe communication and behaviour problems, but they can be helped to learn to relate to others and to communicate in many ways. Those with autism need our greater understanding and more assistance.
During Autism Week I ask my colleagues in the House of Commons to wear the autism lapel buttons that we have been provided with, to participate in local events, and to read the brochures that we have all received. Our greater awareness and involvement can only help.
sfe *	*


LABOUR AND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, in our fast changing and restructuring economy a number of major companies and unions in my riding of Sarnia- Lambton have embarked upon an innovative and pragmatic approach to labour-management relations. It is one which promotes constructive and co-operative partnerships and is entitled "In Search of a Better Way".
Locally, this approach seeks to improve communications among labour and management, to improve the working relationship and quality of policy dialogue and in the end to improve organizational performance through employee involvement. It is not confrontational or short lived. Rather, it is part of an ongoing effort in which labour and management can now discuss actual principles and beliefs, not simply problems.
For example, their initial two-day session centred on defining common goals and common ground. Future efforts will likely focus on safety and the environment.
In the words of a local labour representative: "there is no limit to what we can achieve in the chemical valley if we are working together".
I commend this serious effort to develop an innovative and constructive response to all the members of this
House and hope that this initiative in Sarnia-Lambton can be a useful model for company-union dialogue throughout the country.


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, this government is causing hundreds of families in Atlantic Canada and across this country undue stress. Federal ship crew workers have been on a legal strike for over two weeks. They have been without a contract for two years. They can barely make ends meet on the wages they earn now.
Worse still, the 90 ship crew workers on Prince Edward Island earn less than their counterparts on the west coast. Why does a level one steward on the east coast make $3,000 a year less than a level one steward on the west coast?
These workers provide fisheries surveillance and maintain a safe, ice-free link to the mainland for my province. The government must make a decent offer to these workers now and restore their vital service.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, American farm policies and Conservative trade policies have claimed yet another Canadian victim. Next March St. Lawrence Starch Company will close the manufacturing end of its com milling plant in Mississauga, shifting production to Decatur, Illinois, the home of A. E. Staley Company. Canada will become a distribution depot.
The 1985 U.S. farm bill dropped the U.S. loan rate for corn, and the U.S. promptly flooded Canadian markets with cheap com. Com producers countervailed to subsidize imports to reduce injury to themselves, but the com processors did not exercise their right under Canadian trade law to put in a similar countervail. They decided instead to process in the U.S. market and use the new access to Canada guaranteed by the Conservatives in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, just as we argued would happen during the debate on free trade.
Once again, Canadian farmers and Canadian workers will be worse off because of this government and this policy.

November 28, 1989


S. O. 31 ABORTION
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put my views about abortion on record. I believe that life begins at conception.
I have three unique children, Michael, Holly and Alison. I believe that they were unique from conception. I do not believe they were simply a part of their mother until some time near or after birth, at which time they suddenly turned into the individuals they are now. I believe that their growth and development as individuals began at conception.
I am me now as I stand here. I know that. I believe I was me five months after birth. I believe I was me five months before birth. I believe that I was an individual from conception. I do not believe I was someone else or something else and then turned into me at birth.
To me, all unborn children are unique individuals just like Michael, Holly and Alison, and all unborn should be protected only unless the life or the health of the mother is at stake.
I voted for Bill C-43 on second reading, but it is my hope that at committee stage amendments will be made to reinforce this principle already stated and that recognition and protection can be given to all unborn children.
Although the bill does not do all I would wish, defeating the bill at this stage would not help the unborn either.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Prime Minister and the Department of External Affairs following the Prime Minister's highly successful trip to the Soviet Union.
In particular, I commend the concept of including in the entourage some 200 Canadian business people, allowing them to establish many business contacts and opening new doors.
Lest Canadians think that only large corporations participated, I would like to point out that the entourage
included several companies from western Canada and, I am very proud to say, one company from the Cariboo- Chilcotin. Artec Equipment, an asphalt recycling company based in Williams Lake, participated in the trip. It found it valuable. It expects immediate business results. It expects over the long term a good possibility of a joint venture.
I commend the Prime Minister for providing the leadership and Canadian industry for accepting the challenge.


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, the strike by the Public Service Alliance affecting Coast Guard employees has left 40 unionized ship crew workers in Prescott, a town in my riding, facing what could become a very bleak Christmas. The local Coast Guard ships remain at port, and the navigational buoys which are normally picked up at this time are likely to become frozen in shortly making recovery impossible.
Since these people have been without a contract for two years, would it not make sense for Treasury Board to try again to meet with the union personnel to show good will in bringing about an end to this strike which is starting to have adverse effects in the town of Prescott and the surrounding area?


ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR CROPS ACT
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, farmers across Canada who have used and want more money for advance payments for their grain would be denied this privilege if the NDP and Liberals had their way.
True to form, the opposition voted against Bill C-36 last night. Opposition members believe that either no payment or $30,000 interest-free is better than $250,000 charged at a nominal rate. They are wrong. Farmers need a cash flow. Farming is big business.
Opposition hold up of this bill has caused untold harm to many farmers. Farmers are proud Canadians. They do not want your hand-outs. They want fair consideration, and this government is delivering just that.
November 28, 1989


CANADA POST
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday one of my constituents told me that the lock on his super mailbox had been frozen for a week, and it was not the first time this fall.
According to spokespersons for the Orleans post office, about 200 residents had already complained about the same problem with their mail.

Supermailboxes, are they the kind of second-class service that Canada Post is offering to all citizens establishing themselves in new residential developments? Is this the quality foreseen by Canada Post privatization?
Whether you are an older or a new suburban resident you should be entitled to first-rate service when it comes to mail delivery. Seeing that Canada Post cannot comply with this fact, I firmly support the recommendation made by the government appointed federal postal review committee to scrap all supermailboxes and provide home delivery to every household instead.


HEART DISEASE
Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend you and the House of Commons Health Services Branch for the heartbeat check program that was conducted last week for members of Parliament and staff of the House of Commons.
Heart disease remains the number one killer of Canadians. Hospitalization for treatment of coronary disease is expensive and time consuming. Awareness programs, such as the one undertaken last week, are important tools in combating this killer.
We should all take the time to practise preventive medicine. We should take time to assess our lifestyles, eating habits, and exercise regimes.
The heartbeat check program of last week was simple and fast, yet it gave us an excellent analysis of where improvements in our lives could be made.
Mr. Speaker, please extend my appreciation to the House of Commons employees who conducted this excellent program.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the government has called an agricultural conference on its Green Paper Growing Together because it says that it wants to consult with producers about the future of agriculture in this country. In the past this government has demonstrated that it has no intention of listening to the views of producers, particularly to those who happen to disagree with the government's position.
This was made very clear with respect to the removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board. They were removed despite the opposition of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and others. A Decima poll taken at the time indicated that well over two-thirds of producers in western Canada were opposed to this move as well.
With respect to its new discussion paper the government's idea of consultation is a conference in Ottawa dominated by bureaucrats. The number of actual real farmers in attendance will be a distinct minority.
If the government were truly interested in consultation, it would provide an opportunity for producers throughout the country to participate. Instead of honest consultation, the government is only interested in ramming its right wing agenda down Canadian's throats.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, many of us have just completed our first anniversary as members of this House. During that time we have been impressed with the access to these chambers afforded to Canadians. We would like to thank you for protecting that right. I would like to thank you for improving the access to the building and the facilities by the handicapped.

November 28, 1989
Oral Questions
We are also impressed with the competence and dedication of the staff of the House of Commons. We saw two very good examples today-the speed and dignity with which the security forces restored dignity to the gallery and, perhaps not as dramatic, how under difficult driving conditions our buses even continued running safely.
Throughout the building, Mr. Speaker, your staff supports us in all of our efforts. I would like to congratulate you on the quality of recruitment and through you commend them all for their professionalism and dedication to this House and to the country.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Ttorner@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We now have two forms of the Conservative goods and services tax, tweedledum and tweedledummer.
Canadians know that both Conservative proposals are attempts, to use the words of the chairman of the committee, to gouge them for more than $10 billion in new taxes. Canadians certainly do not believe that this government will not try to raise that tax, no matter what rate at which it is originally brought in.
The Prime Minister and his Conservative cohorts love to talk about other countries that brought in a goods and services tax. Let us look at some of those other countries.
Austria brought in a tax at 8 per cent and raised it to 20 per cent. Denmark brought in a tax at 10 per cent and raised it to 22 per cent. France brought in a tax at 13 per cent and raised it to 18 per cent. West Germany brought in a tax at 10 per cent and raised it to 14 per cent. Great Britain brought in a tax at 10 per cent and raised it to 15 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr.   Ibrner@Vancouver Quadra: My question for the Prime Minister of Canada is this: Do Canadians seriously expect that this new tax, if brought in and approved in
whatever form, will not lead to an ever increasing gouging of the taxpayers of Canada just as has already occurred in so many other countries?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that on this side of the House we were interested in the description of our policy as tweedledum and tweedledummer. I heard somebody outside describe the Liberal position on tax reform as tweedledummest.
In fact the Leader of the Opposition had a financial spokesman here, a tax expert seated next to him, as well as the present Whip, and other members of the Liberal party who strongly recommended the course of action that has generally been pursued by the government.
The Liberal party said for some years that the manufacturers' sales tax was very harmful to the interests of the country and that a goods and services tax would be beneficial to producers, to consumers and to economic growth in the regions of the nation. This is exactly what we have done.
We have brought in a goods and services tax which met not only the philosophy but the general objectives set out by the House and endorsed by the Liberal party. Now that it is in the process of being introduced, the Liberal party typically changes its mind and says that it will not support this progressive action.
The question is not to ask the government whether we will proceed with this, because we will. The question to ask members of the Liberal opposition again is: If they oppose this as they do, what do they stand for in terms of substantial sales tax reform? Or, do they want to stick Canada with the old manufacturers' sales tax?


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in his usual fashion is historically inaccurate and despite the fact that he maligns the current manufacturer's sales tax, he raised that tax on four separate occasions from 9 to 10 to 11 to 12 to 13.5 per cent.
The alternative of the Liberal Party is set forth clearly in the minority report.


Martin Brian Mulroney: What is it? Tell us what it is.


John Napier Turner: The alternative is to scrap the tax-
November 28, 1989

Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: And?


John Napier Turner: -and scrap the minister.
In the world's greatest trading nation, the United States, there is no goods and services tax. In Japan, another trade giant, the taxpayers are in a revolt against a 3 per cent tax rather 9 per cent. In Switzerland, perhaps the most successful small economy in the world, there is no goods and services tax. In Australia, one of the world's most successful export economies, mediumsized, there is no goods and services tax.
Why does the Canadian Prime Minister keep insisting that Canadians need to have a goods and services tax in order to compete successfully around the world when the two greatest trading nations of the world do not have such a tax?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can be quite selective with what he wants. The fact is that there are 48 countries in the world today that have a goods and services tax.
I want to draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that in the 1940s the Rowell-Sirois report decided that there should be a change in the manufacturers' sales tax. In 1956, the Carter committee said that there should be a change in the manufacturers' sales tax. In 1966, the Carter royal commission made the same comment. In 1977, the commodity tax review group report and, just before he took office, in the 1980s the Goodman report, a report of the federal sales tax review committee, also recommended a change in the federal sales tax.
Each of these major independent groups made recommendations to the Liberal governments of the day in each of those years. The Liberal government did nothing during this period of time. I read the so-called minority report. It was not a report of recommendations or alternatives. There were no alternatives whatsoever. It was totally vapid in its response to a series of reports that said something should be done about the federal sales tax.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have read the reports the minister has cited. All those reports recommended to a government that if a government chose to have a goods and services tax or a value-added tax that the tax be visible, and this is not visible; insisted that the tax be in co-operation with the provinces, and this has no co-operation with the provinces; insisted that
it be revenue-neutral and non-inflationary. The Minister of Finance has not met any of the criteria of the reports of the last 40 years.

Mr. Speaker, what makes the Prime Minister think that the provincial Premiers are wrong, that the arts community is wrong, that farm groups are wrong, that teachers' organizations are wrong, that senior citizens' groups are wrong, that labour unions are wrong, that representatives of small businesses are wrong, that spokespersons for the churches are wrong and that only the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Conservative Party are right in this country?


Mr. Duhamel:: Ninety per cent!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the comment made by the Hon. Member for Saint-Boniface. As far as the question put by the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, he knows perfectly well that wide-ranging tax changes are always a major challenge for any government. There is always tremendous resistance to tax changes of this kind. He knows that perfectly well. But when we analyses for instance, the report from the Liberal minority on the committee, there are no constructive or positive recommendations. The Leader of the Opposition has just said that his party's policy boils down to this: Keep the old tax and ask for the resignation of the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: But that is what it boils down to. We on this side realize there are changes that are not popular but that are necessary. We want to make constructive and positive changes in the economy of this country, to make it more competitive in the future. We are prepared to do things that are not popular, aware that the national interest demands leadership, and we are providing that leadership.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Housing). Yesterday, the Finance Committee submitted its report on the GST, which will have a dramatic and negative effect on housing. And flagrantly contradicting statements he made previously, the Minister of Finance has refused to say whether he will reject all these proposals. And now, to get to my question: First of all, was the minister consulted by the Chairman of the Finance Committee? If so, what was his reaction? Second, can the minister give the House the assurance that he will

Oral Questions
fight to the bitter end to ensure these proposals are rejected by Cabinet?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, all the committees of the House proceed independently in accordance with normal procedure and in accordance with parliamentary reform which was introduced in this House in the last term by the Prime Minister.
The committee obviously heard a lot of evidence across the country, came to its own conclusions, wrote its own report. That report is now before the government. The government is studying that report and there will be a response in due course.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the goods and services tax is a stupid, inept and incompetent tax. How this minister can accept it in general, and how this minister can refuse to defend the interests of those to whom he is supposed to give shelter is beyond the belief of any Canadian.
Since his appointment, the minister has given us a number of trial balloons, none of which have been lived up to. He has presided over the decimation of the housing-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: If these recommendations are accepted in whole or in part, will the minister announce his resignation?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, all members of this House at one time or another, have condemned the existing federal sales tax. The federal sales tax generates, as we all know, some $18 billion of revenue for the government.
Realistically, if the federal sales tax is going to be scrapped there has to be a realistic alternative. We have not heard that from the opposition as yet. I am still waiting and I am still looking at the situation. I am certainly willing to hear from the hon. member with his viable alternatives at any time.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance is aware that a number of Conservative back-benchers have been dumping on the chairman of the finance committee and indeed one of the members of the Conservative majority has also been dumping on his proposals.
I want to know whether the Minister of Finance will join the rest of the country and say no to the 7 per cent solution by taxing resale housing and whether in a rare moment of candour and frankness in this House he can acknowledge that as Minister of Finance, instead of following the chairman of the finance committee, he is going to impose an 8 per cent GST?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if I might respond on behalf of the chairman of the finance committee, I know that he does appreciate the support of the New Democratic Party for the positions that he has set out in the report. I am sure he would want me to convey those thanks to you on his behalf.
The finance committee has done some good work. Unfortunately, the minority reports have not done credit to the whole process of consultation and involvement of many people in the private sector who came before the finance committee.
I hear mumblings from the House leader of the New Democrat-the Liberal Party. It is the same thing, I guess.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Michael, watch your mouth!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: At least the New Democratic Party had some alternatives. The alternatives I totally disagree with, but at least they had the courage of their own convictions and came out with some recommendations as to what the changes might be. The Liberal Party had nothing to say. All they said was go back to the drawing board that we have been working on as a country for 50 years now and come up with something. Well, we have come up with something, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, once again the minister has not answered the question. I want to know whether or not he can confirm that he is about to propose an 8 per cent GST to the country.
I also want to know whether or not he agrees with and can confirm figures that were compiled in the Department of Finance that even with the tax credit for low-income people, a family earning $20,000 with two
November 28, 1989

children will pay 10 times as much through the GST as through the income tax system in order to raise $18.5 billion. Does he agree with this? Does he confirm those figures? If he does, why does he not withdraw the GST and introduce more progressive and fair ways to raise the money for the Government of Canada? Why does he not do that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, with the proposal that we have brought forward in the technical paper, we have demonstrated a major shift in the progressivity of sales tax in this country.
When we came to office in 1984 there was no refundable sales tax credit at all. The result was that people in low-income brackets paid two or three percentage points more of their income in sales tax than those people in middle and upper-income brackets.
With the GST proposal, including the GST credit, which is a refundable rebate to low-income people, those people in low-income brackets will pay two percentage points less of their income in sales tax than those in upper-income brackets.
That is a major step forward in the progressivity of changing the whole nature of sales tax in this country. That is why the new sales tax system that we are proposing is far fairer than the old system.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I notice the minister getting a very timid response from his own back-benchers, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am glad that they all agree with me. They will need all the help they can get to sell this proposition to the Canadian people since only 7 per cent of the people support it.
I wonder why the Minister of Finance does not start at the top and eliminate the deduction for meals and entertainment for the business community, which costs the Canadian taxpayers about $1 billion a year.
Can he explain to the House why he allows his buddy, Conrad Black, to deduct his champagne and caviar dinners while a truck driver will have to pay the GST on a bologna sandwich at a truck stop? Why does he not
Oral Questions
eliminate that deduction, make Conrad Black pay and give a break to the ordinary people in this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first let me thank my hon. colleague for giving the cue to my friends on this side of the House. Possibly the next time he could lead the support from his own back benches. I would appreciate that.
The hon. member asks a valid question about the balance between sales tax and income tax and how progressive the two-tax system should be. I believe, and this government believes, that there should be a sales tax, partly for fiscal reasons because of the amount of money that that tax does raise, as my colleague has said $18 billion, but partly to get an appropriate balance between savings and investment on the one hand and consumption on the other.
The Leader of the Opposition said that the United States does not have a sales tax. One of the problems that it is suffering from is that its savings and investments are on the low side, and with a consumption tax and change in its income tax that could improve its savings and investment, which is very healthy for for an economy. That is why we believe that there should be a sales tax system in this country.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Last week the United States Congress passed an amendment to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act which restricts the size of lobster sold to the U.S. Congress passed the legislation, contrary to the undertaking given by the President to the Prime Minister last September that discussions would be carried out before this legislation became effective. No discussions have taken place between the two countries. The President now has 10 days to sign this legislation.
Will the Prime Minister, when he meets with President Bush, impress upon the President that this legislation is harsh, unfair and is not very good for friendly relations between Canada and the U.S?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raises a very important question

November 28, 1989
Oral Questions
and I thank the member for it. It is of course my intention, having raised it in Maine, to deal with it again in Washington tomorrow.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister will do more than deal with it tomorrow because this is what we did in September. I hope the Prime Minister will ask the President to veto this offensive legislation. It restricts the $130 million lobster industry on the east coast that started this week.
Will the Prime Minister ask President Bush to veto this legislation and have discussions?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has already asked President Bush to veto this offensive legislation. If the President does not veto the legislation, then we will be taking the matter to a panel under the FTA and to the GATT as well. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will add his weight to our representations tomorrow.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the right hon. Prime Minister. On the same subject matter, the Prime Minister said in the House on October 6:
The full weight and influence of the Canadian Government, provincial governments and Members of Parliament -will be brought to bear on the U.S. Congress and the U.S. administration, in an attempt to settle this very serious problem, in the interests of our fishermen in Eastern Canada.
I want to ask the right hon. Prime Minister what assurances he will give today to lobster fishermen in eastern Canada. What assurances will he give them that their livelihoods will not be put in jeopardy by the restrictive trade practices as a result of this amendment by Senator George Mitchell in Maine?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already given the member's colleague from South West Nova the assurance that I will raise it again tomorrow with the President of the United States.
The Minister for International Trade has been dealing on this matter with Ambassador Hills. Ambassador Burney has met on a number of occasions most recently with Senator Mitchell, a fact which can be confirmed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition who was recently in Washington. I would be interested to know his views on whether he raised the question of lobsters with Senator Mitchell while he was there. I can assure you that if the Leader of the Opposition did not raise
that in defence of the lobster producers, the Government of Canada has, and we will continue to fight for those producers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the right hon. Prime Minister. The issue is not the Leader of the Opposition. The issue is the leadership coming from the right hon. Prime Minister with regard to lobster fishermen in eastern Canada. That is the issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, presently in South West Nova and all throughout Atlantic Canada this legislation is causing great uncertainty among our lobster fishermen. It will drop the price for Canadian lobster fishermen and their sales, and it will restrict traditional markets of Canadian lobster fishermen into the United States.
Will the Prime Minister clearly and unequivocally undertake to ask specifically for a veto of this legislation to protect our lobster fishermen in eastern Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why my distinguished friend is getting so exercised. The answer had already been given by the Minister for International Trade.
The Minister for International Trade, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I, as Prime Minister, have dealt with this at the highest levels of the American government. We view it as a most serious matter. It has been raised and pursued very vigorously as well, as I said, by Ambassador Burney and his colleagues in Washington. I will be visiting with President Bush tomorrow. I will deal as effectively as I can with the matter tomorrow and I will be happy to report to my hon. friend as quickly as I can.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. The recent Moscow visit of the Prime Minister produced a joint Canada-USSR declaration. It states that both signatories will undertake the following: "The renunciation of war as a means of national policy, respect for the rights of peoples to determine their own destinies on the basis of freedom of choice" and to " protect the environment, keeping in mind that the threat of an ecological catas-
November 28, 1989

trophe is next in its implication only to the threat of nuclear war itself".
In that light, will the Prime Minister help bury the cold war next week when he is at Brussels by cancelling Canada's bid for the tactical training centre at Goose Bay?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the member had asked that question earlier. He also has continually tried to convince Canadians that this government, particularly the Department of National Defence, has had no interest in bringing about understanding and peace in this world. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We have taken actions in the Department of National Defence. The Prime Minister in his trip to Moscow signed an agreement with the government of the Soviet Union. The reason this department was involved some two months ago in discussions with the Soviet military is that of confidence-building, reaching understandings with one another and being able to bring a climate of peace and security in the world. We will continue to do that.
At the same time, we should continue to have prudence. We should continue to work through the two alliances, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, to reduce the presence of arms in this world.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also for the Canadian Minister of National Defence. Surely he is aware that Poland's Minister of National Defence has been engaging in confidence-building measures very closely related to this point in that he has issued restrictions on low level flying, on supersonic flying, on firing and bombing exercises. Also the Soviet Air Force MIG-23 battalion has been withdrawn from the Baltic coast. This is according to Jane's Defence Weekly.
Will the minister consider responding to these confidence-building measures and peace moves by the Warsaw bloc and to the Canadian women's groups, native groups, church and other groups which today presented his office with a block from the Berlin wall, which is part of the same relaxation in the east? Will he do that by restricting the low level flights and other training over Goose Bay and Nitassinan instead of increasing them
Oral Questions
from 7,000 to 40,000 according to the outdated NATO plan?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member puts forward a suggestion that would mean that Canada would act unilaterally as a member of NATO.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Poland did it.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The member says Poland did it. Poland has also done some other things I do not think Canadians would like to see this government or any other government do in this country. I would like the member to try to understand regardless of the half truths that were put forward by a group this morning that he associated himself with, including the Canadian Council of Churches.
The aggressive nature that they state in low-level training is not accurate. It is defensive training. It is training that all air forces throughout both the Warsaw Pact and the NATO Alliance continue to do and we will continue to do. Hopefully, through negotiations, both the Warsaw Pact and the NATO Alliance will be able to reduce the need for that low level flying. Until that time comes we, as members of NATO, will continue to take part.


FINANCE
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to direct my procedural question to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, specifically relating to future proceedings of the committee. As you know, the honourable chairman reported on behalf of the committee and that report in principle supported the goods and services tax. The people of Macleod would like to know when the finance committee will start listening to Canadians about cutting government spending. In short, when is this finance committee, the committee as a whole, going to do something other than recommend taxes?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: This answer is going to require great calm.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 28, 1989
Oral Questions


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the member may know, in the committee report filed yesterday, that the first recommendation of the committee is to conduct public hearings and an inquiry into government expense. After some consultation, we will be calling a meeting next week of the committee to determine how we should proceed. I am going to suggest to the committee that the Hon. Member from Ontario be the chairman of a subcommittee of the finance committee in this inquiry.
A number of briefs were presented in the last hearings on the goods and services tax detailing certain claims and I think it is important that the committee really follow those up to make a recommendation to the House.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, we know that the Minister of Finance speaks no evil, sees no evil and hears no evil with respect to his 9 per cent tax. So, let me ask a question of the minister responsible for housing who is supposed to represent home owners, home buyers, home providers, builders and others. How can the minister sit and watch while both the Minister of Finance and the chairman of the finance committee inflict such pain and hardship on Canadians who either own, rent or want to buy a home? Will this Minister categorically reject both GST proposals on housing?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, the government is currently considering the report that was filed yesterday by the finance committee and will be taking it into consideration.
I think the hon. member should bear in mind that the present proposal for the GST includes a rebate in connection with new housing. That rebate has some characteristics to it which promote affordability in housing, one of them being that the rebate is not available for anyone who is not a Canadian resident, and a second one being that the rebate is not available except in the case of a principal residence. In effect, it provides an implicit land speculation tax to it. I think the hon. member should bear those factors in mind when considering affordability in housing.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: The Minister will know that that rebate is not worth the paper it is written on. He knows that full well.
A tax on housing is not a tax on consumption. It is a tax on a dream, on savings, on a basic essential of life and that is shelter. Both proposals will push the price of a home out of the reach of most Canadians. How does the government plan to redress this inequality? What will this minister do for the people who want to buy a home?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, there is a federal sales tax at the moment on new housing and on the existing housing it is included in that price. The impact of that tax is calculated to be some 4 per cent at the present time. The impact of the proposal of the finance department with the rebate has the total impact of a marginal increase in taxes with respect to housing.
It is indicated that housing prices would likely not increase generally by perhaps more than a figure that was less than 1 per cent.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade who will be meeting his counterpart, the U.S. trade representative, on Thursday in Washington, hopefully not to capitulate on Atlantic lobsters, as his government has done on west coast salmon and herring.
The government has accepted the decision of the binational panel which permits up to 20 per cent of west coast salmon and herring to be sold over the side to the United States, contrary to its previous insistence that landing requirements were necessary for the conservation and management of Canadian fish stocks. Yet the Americans are still not satisfied. They want more.
Will the trade minister assure this House that they will not get more? Will he commit to Canadians today, prior to his meeting, that Canada will not sell out Canadian fish processing jobs once again? Will he undertake that no more than 20 per cent of salmon and herring will be allowed to be sold over the side to the United States-
Mr. Speaker:: 
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the thrust of the question. There is a meeting between Mrs. Hills and myself on Thursday in Ottawa, not in Washington.
One of the issues that will be discussed is the B.C. salmon and herring situation. We announced that we are accepting the report. The report of the panel found that Canada's landing regulations were in truth and in essence conservation and management regulations, and that they were in order with the suggestion that from 10 to 20 per cent of any particular species of fish might not need to be landed to make the information obtained satisfactory and valid. So landing regulations have been found to be valid.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Is the
Minister for International Trade changing his government's interpretation of this panel ruling to suit the Americans on the eve of his meeting with the U.S. trade representative? Is that what the minister is telling this House? Is this how the dispute settlement panel under the free trade agreement is supposed to operate? Does it mean when Canada and the United States disagree on the interpretation of a panel ruling that Canada meekly accepts the American interpretation?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, apparently I am not speaking too clearly today, having just come from the dentist. I don't know where the greatest pain was, in the dentist's office or here.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Our interpretation of the panel report has not changed and will not change on Thursday, and we are prepared to implement the panel report. We will implement the panel report as we have said we will do.


FORESTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of forests. The expiry of forest agreements between the federal government and a number of provinces is wreaking havoc across the country.
The New Brunswick forestry workers have lost their jobs. In Manitoba, emergency funding to plant six million rotting seedlings had to be approved this summer, all of
Oral Questions
this because of the failure of the minister to sign new agreements.
Will the minister announce, today, federal funds for a 10-year billion dollar agreement with British Columbia?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I won't be able to announce today a 10-year billion dollar agreement with British Columbia, but I can tell the hon. member and my friend that the new B.C. minister of forestry is in the city today. We have begun negotiations with the provinces. The member knows that particular agreement does not expire until the end of this fiscal year, which is the end of March.
I will also be able to tell the House in the very near future of the signing of a number of agreements with provinces that had expired earlier. Also, I want to tell the hon. member that I am not aware of any lay-off in the silviculture industry in the maritime provinces or anywhere else as a result of our negligence.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the forestry minister from British Columbia is in town today is a perfect reason that the minister should announce a new agreement today.
In order to build on the work that was done by the first forest agreement in B.C., can the minister tell this House that he will guarantee that funds for a new forest agreement will help replant the backlog NSR lands in British Columbia by the year 2000?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, what I can tell my hon. friend is that the people who would probably be best qualified to build on the foundation of the first FRDA agreement would be the architects of that agreement. We are beginning to build on that, in our negotiations and he will be very pleasantly surprised when it is all done.
sk * sjc


EL SALVADOR
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. While the situation in east Europe has improved dramatically, Canadians have watched with horror the last two weeks increased violence in El Salvador.

Oral Questions
Many hundreds of Canadians have visited Central America in recent years, not as tourists but out of concern for the political socio-economic plight of the region's majority population. They want a strong, independent Canadian voice in the region. They want the Canadian government to assure safety and justice in El Salvador to Canadian and other civilian volunteers.
Is this government committed to designating a permanent Canadian professional diplomat on the ground in San Salvador to guarantee these assurances?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have two Canadian representatives in San Salvador now. They will be staying in San Salvador for the duration of the conflict there which we hope will not endure long.
I had the opportunity earlier today, which I very much appreciated, to speak to the hon. member and other members of the House from all parties who are interested in trying to find a constructive way in which Canada can help bring peace to El Salvador. As she knows, I have been in touch with the foreign minister of Venezuela. We are in touch diplomatically with the Governments of Cuba, of Nicaragua and of other countries in Central America.
The Prime Minister and I will be meeting tomorrow with President Bush and Secretary Baker and will be discussing the question there. I will also be calling in various Canadians from church groups and others, including some who have recently been helped by the Government of Canada to leave El Salvador, to get their views on Thursday as to other actions which Canada might constructively take.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I was asking if we would consider a permanent representative on the ground in El Salvador.
On Thursday, November 23, the El Salvadoran government enacted a penal code amendment, an anti-terrorist law which puts at risk all volunteers of any nationality, including the well-know American non-violent activist, Jennifer Cassolo who is currently detained under suspicious charges.
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs assure us today in this House that he will inform the El Salvadoran government that this legislation is undemocratic and ask for its withdrawal? Also, will he press President Bush to convey the same message concerning this in his meeting tomorrow?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member, on reconsideration, would understand that whatever we might think of laws in other countries, laws passed in those countries are theirs to decide and theirs to choose, just as laws passed in this country are ours to decide and ours to choose.
We are very much concerned about the law that has been passed. We are concerned about the implications it holds for Canadians. We are particularly concerned about the case of Jennifer Cassolo which the member has raised. Jennifer Cassolo has helped a number of Canadians, including parliamentarians, when they visited El Salvador.
It is the general view of church groups, parliamentarians and others to whom I have spoken, that it would be most surprising were she guilty of the charges that have been laid against her. I will be communicating that view directly to authorities in El Salvador with an eye to trying to ensure that for as long as she is in custody, she is as safe as can be and to tiy to have her out of custody as quickly as possible.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment, who I am sure is aware that the resolve to reduce acid rain in both Canada and the United States is weakening. The U.S. government has filed evidence with the U.S. Court of Appeal which claims that it is entirely speculative that a cut in U.S. emissions would reduce acid rain damage in Canada.
Here at home, Quebec Hydro is encouraging thousands of its industrial customers to switch from electricity to oil, meaning that Quebec will not meet its commitment to reduce acid rain emissions to 600,000 tonnes by next January.
Will the minister intervene and request that Quebec Hydro implement some of the billions of dollars in energy efficiency and conservation measures contained in its own March 1989 report, rather than blow the cap on acid rain, both in Canada and perhaps in our relations with the United States?
November 28, 1989

Points of Order


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, my Department is indeed disturbed by the decision made recently by Hydro-Quebec, because we have reason to believe that this decision may compromise the objectives set by the government of Quebec in the agreement that was signed. We believe the timing was very poor, considering that we are now negotiating an agreement with the Americans that would enable us to meet the objectives we have in mind. However, on the basis of our discussions with the Quebec Department of the Environment, we have reason to hope that radical action will be taken by this department, vis-a-vis Hydro-Quebec, to reduce the sulfur content of heavy oil used in Quebec so that our objectives can nevertheless be met. We are monitoring the situation very closely, and we realize that intervention by the federal government may be necessary.


POINTS OF ORDER
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I rise to bring to the attention of members in this House an unusual presence today in the House of Commons. I rise as Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport to bring to the attention of members of the House of Commons the presence of people that Canadians know well but do not often have the opportunity to visit within this forum.
If you will be patient with me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce and bring to your attention the presence of Mr. Gordie and Colleen Howe-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean J. Charest: -Mr. Ed and Norma Shack-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean J. Charest: Lome "Gump" and Doreen Worsley.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean J. Charest: 
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: As the co-critic for Fitness and Amateur Sports and a spokesperson for the Liberal party, it gives me great pleasure to see some of my former colleagues who I used to meet in hockey arenas, in our arena today, the House of Commons. We wish them a hearty welcome and it is a pleasure to see them among us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: On behalf of our party, I would also like to welcome our guests to the gallery. Some of them go back almost as long as we do. It is too bad some of them are not members of the cabinet. Then we might have more money for sports in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I too would like to address our visitors in the gallery and advise them that this whole procedure was completely out of order but seems to have met with the universal consent of the House.


ADJOURNMENT DEBATE-STATEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order totally unconnected with the last one. On Wednesday night last during the Adjournment Debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport was responding to a submission of mine in respect of the transportation of dangerous goods and emergency preparedness on the west coast.
The point I had been making included the fact that the government had failed to provide any enforcement of its regulations in respect of the carriage and shipment of dangerous goods on passenger ferries on the coast. In the course of his answer, the parliamentary secretary said and it is reported at the bottom of page 6065 of Hansard for the day, that 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".

November 28, 1989
Points of Order
This has been the first opportunity I have had to raise this point. I have checked not only with the Auditor General's report but with the Auditor General's office itself.
The Auditor General's office said that at best, someone is mixing up words. I do not suggest for a second that the parliamentary secretary himself was intentionally misleading the House, but rather that he had been wrongly briefed and as a result, the House was misled. He was in fact quoting from a different section of the report dealing with quite a different matter.
In respect of dangerous cargoes, the Auditor General's report says on page 474, Section 22.34:
An example of a potentially hazardous situation is the illegal transportation of dangerous goods on passenger ferries. Ferry operators rely on declarations by transporters that dangerous goods are not among those being shipped on passenger ferries. The Ship Safety Branch does not have a program to monitor or inspect such shipments.
On the next page, in Section 22.48 on page 476 the report goes on to say:
Although the Western Region each year does approximately 100 inspections of shipments of dangerous goods, it has no procedure for selecting a certain proportion of such shipments for random inspection, and it does no random inspection of ferries in the Region.
Inadvertently I am sure, the parliamentary secretary has incorrectly quoted the Auditor General on a very critical issue, one which has recently, over this last weekend, been resolved in part by the ferry union and the B.C. Ferry Corporation reaching agreement. We still have not had assurances from Transport Canada and from the parliamentary secretary that in fact the government is providing inspections to ensure that the regulations are being met and the travelling public protected.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for bringing to our attention the statements that I made in the House this past Wednesday evening in the Adjournment Debate. I believe it focuses around paragraph 22.14 of the Auditor General's report which states that the examinations of ships' safety focused on the planning process used by the Coast Guard to allocate scarce resources to its regular activity and its mandatory and discretionary inspections, and I want to underline the word "discretionary".
Discretionary inspections, by their very nature, are conducted when specific concerns exist. The Auditor General further states, later on in his report, at paragraph 22.47, that in the maritime regions, the ships' safety branch reports that it inspects approximately 2 per cent of the containers used in the transportation of dangerous goods, and the region monitors the movement of dangerous goods in its area and uses the information to determine which containers to inspect; that is to say, discretionary inspection or inspections on the basis of specific concerns.
I want to say that there was no intent, on this member's part, to mislead the hon. member, and I want to apologize in this House for making statements that could be attributed as coming specifically out of the Auditor General's report. I want to thank the hon. member for bringing it to our attention.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, when I made by maiden speech in this House in 1979, the then Speaker, Speaker Jerome, ruled me out of order because I recognized one of my students from my riding in the gallery. I have respected that ruling ever since.
Since I have returned to this House, there have been two occasions when the rule has been disregarded, once when a choir was recognized in the visitors' gallery and today. Visitors should be recognized, I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, but today visitors were recognized in the Speaker's gallery. If we want to recognize these visitors, maybe it is time that we looked at changing the rules of who can and who cannot be recognized in the gallery.
We are getting more and more very important visitors coming, sitting in the Speaker's gallery, or the visitors' gallery, and I think we should have a clear understanding of who should be recognized and who should not, so that we do not get into these embarrassing situations as we did today.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I think we could help the Chair determine how we should proceed in the future.
November 28, 1989

I think the hon. member did well to make this point, since I always understood, and this rule has always worked well in the past, that the Speaker is informed of the presence of visitors in the gallery and decides to recognize them on our behalf, at the appropriate time. It is rather embarrrassing for the other political parties when an important visitor is recognized by one political party and this leads to what we have seen today, namely that members of other parties feel obliged or rather are delighted to rise in the House, and this merely prolongs the proceedings.
Of course, we join in the applause, but I think the Chair should consider what was said by the Hon. Member from Toronto and advise all Members including cabinet ministers, that this rule should be inflexible and apply to everyone. It is up to the Chair to recognize the distinguished visitors we would like to recognize. However, we can inform the speaker or draw his attention to the various important visitors we can expect.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, with your leave, and especially to come to the defence of the Chair, I feel obliged to explain to my opposition friends that I was not personally informed of the fact that the people whose presence I mentioned a few minutes ago in our gallery would, in fact, be visiting the House. Like most members here in the House, when these people entered the gallery, I was surprised to see them, and I decided to take the initiative of rising on a point of order, after Question Period, to draw the attention of the House to their presence.
What I wish to say to hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, is that the Chair was not involved at all in this initiative taken by the Deputy House Leader. I want it to be quite clear that this decision, which I made personally, was well beyond any control the Chair might have.
So I want to make it quite clear to all members of this House that the person chairing the proceedings of this House today was not involved at all in the decision I made to draw the attention of the House to the presence of our visitors.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I think we should also realize that from time to time, there may be situations when members of this House may decide to draw attention to the presence of distinguished citizens who
Points of Order
may be in our galleries unannounced, and that from time to time we should offer some leeway to those who take this kind of initiative. I believe that is the case today.
So as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, and in concluding, I would like to say that if you decide to give me a reprimand because I drew the attention of the House to the presence of Messrs. Howe, Shack, Worsely and Maurice "Rocket" Richard in our gallery today, I accept that reprimand with great pleasure.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I will not let this go by that easily. I think the hon. minister totally misrepresented what we are trying to do. I did not blame the Speaker and that was not our intention. We said it is a custom be informed, and the minister is trying to sidetrack the debate. Of course the Speaker is not going to blame the minister today, and I know the minister would like to say he was blamed for recognizing great people that we all want to applaud. That is not the point.
The point raised by my esteemed colleague from Toronto is that it has always been our practice, in order not to have this kind of debate, for Mr. Speaker to recognize visitors, hon. minister, the next time such an occasion arises, he can take a pen, and if he needs one I can lend him mine any time, to send a little distinguished note to Mr. Speaker saying, "Mr. Speaker, I see in the gallery distinguished people who should be recognized." Then Mr. Speaker will do so.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think you have to be very careful here. I too along with all members of the House appreciated the minister so gallantly rising and pointing out some very distinguished guests. We all felt that was an appropriate act.
However, if this becomes any kind of open season, we all have distinguished guests to which we might draw attention. I observe, Mr. Speaker, that you have been very liberal in your efforts in the last while to recognize the people in our gallery, recognizing that that time comes out of Question Period, which is the only time we have to hold the government accountable. That can be problematic. On the other hand, I am sure others have noticed that you use the occasion from time to time to defuse the House when it perhaps becomes a little too

November 28, 1989
Points of Order
rambunctious, by focusing our attention on esteemed guests in the gallery.
I think it is important that we all have a clear understanding that it is the Speaker who recognizes guests on our behalf, because if we turn this into an open season situation, we will all be up on points of order at the end of Question Period pointing out various guests. I think that my hon. friend knows the rules and regulations and I simply would ask him, and not only his colleagues but all of us, to recognize the time honoured tradition that it is the Speaker who recognizes guests in the gallery on behalf of us all.


Mr. Speaker:: This may be the appropriate time for some comments by the Chair. I want to thank the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis and the minister for their comments, especially the hon. member for Saint-Denis, since he is an expert on the rules of the House of Commons and one of our veteran members. I listened carefully to the comments made by the hon. member, wise as always.
I believe the comments made by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park were particularly apt.

Let me just point out to hon. members that after the House joined together in a happy demonstration of felicity and welcome to the distinguished visitors in the gallery, I pointed out that the entire procedure was, of course, highly out of order. I might have likened the situation to a hockey game, but I resisted that temptation. I can only say to the hon. member for Parkdale- High Park that under the circumstances I could not put all hon. members on both sides of the House in the penalty box.
But we have a procedure which I think ought to be followed, that is, that first of all there are some guidelines with regard to whom we recognize. The proper procedure is that at some time well in advance of the moment when the guests are expected notice is given to the Speaker.
I am always in the hands of hon. members. If the House wants, by consent, to change that on some special
occasion, of course the House can do so. I think the consent that we saw this afternoon was one that sort of crept around the chamber and nobody, under the circumstances, wished to be other than gracious. I understand that.
The difficulty we have, though, is: as the hon. member for Kamloops pointed out, all hon. members have people of great distinction living in their ridings. After all, without the support of these people of great distinction, hon. members would not be here. There is a natural tendency and natural temptation to want to recognize these people. Sometimes the distinction they have as great Canadians has a great deal to do with how close they live to the hon. member back in the riding. But that is not a matter for me to concern myself with as long as the suggestion for recognition meets the guidelines. The guidelines are veiy clear and hon. members have them.
I would say to the hon. minister that I think there was some complicity on both sides of the House with the hon. minister's very generous use of a moment or two after Question Period. I want to assure the hon. minister that I am not taking any of these remarks as any kind of an attack on the Chair. I just want to advise hon. members and the public, of course, that I do not think this was quite the individual initiative that the minister may have indicated to the House it was, because an hon. member from this side of the House had come to me and said: "When are we going to recognize these special guests?"
This is one of those rare moments when the House expressed its unanimous wish to do something, but I think I should say that it is a rare moment and, unless I am advised differently by the House, I am going to stick to the rules and recognitions will not be made unless I have notice and unless they fit the guidelines.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments of the parliamentary secretary on the point that I raised, and I am quite happy to accept his statement of apology. On that basis I would gladly withdraw my point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. In response, I think the hon. member for Victoria made it very clear that he appreciated the point being raised, and he was very courteous in his reply. In the best traditions of this place I thank the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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



ORDER IN COUNCIL


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Of course all this is pursuant to Section 110(1).


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES, PROCEDURE AND PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS TABLING OF REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in the House the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business. The Committee has designated a motion as a votable item, and it is motion No. 524, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my delight to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order
Routine Proceedings
36, on behalf of a number of people from British Columbia who point out their concern for the government's goods and services tax.
While pointing out most of the shortcomings of the tax, the petitioners simply ask the government to reconsider proceeding, to go back to the drawing board and to start all over again.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a second item, again pursuant to Standing Order 36 and certified correct by the clerk of petitions, I wish to present a petition from 72 western Canadians who point out the need for the government to reconsider its decision on VIA Rail cut-backs and actually upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 with three petitions, two of them with a total of 101 signatures, asking the government not to make any cuts on VIA Rail and to wait until a new transportation policy can be brought into effect.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition on a totally unrelated matter from many persons in my constituency from the cities of Brantford, Paris, Ontario and so on who are completely opposed to abortion.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and obligation to present three separate groups of petitions to the House today, all of which have been certified correct as to form and content by the clerk.
First, some 37 signatories from my riding of Sarnia- Lambton call upon the Parliament of Canada to urge the Governor in Council to exercise his constitutional power of disallowance with respect to Bill 178 of the province of Quebec which they believe contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, the second petition which contains approximately 200 signatures calls upon Parliament to amend the Young Offend-

November 28, 1989
Routine Proceedings
ers Act to better protect the interests of society from violent offenders, no matter the age of the offender.


Kenneth Albert James: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have received some 4,400 signatures from residents of Sarnia, Clearwater, Brights Grove, Point Edward, Corunna, Courtright and other communities throughout Ontario who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass legislation which establishes mandatory minimum sentences for all violent crimes that would apply uniformly to all regions of Canada.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour as a member of Parliament to present several petitions from constituents in the lower mainland, but also from Vancouver Island. The list comprises several hundred names and their petition reads as follows:
The undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to preserve the distinctive heritage and tradition of the RCMP by retaining uniformity of dress code with all the recognizable colour and trappings that have such great historical value for this country.
The pride and esprit de corps should not be jeopardized by any concession to religious or ethnic minorities which result in changes to this truly great police force and its proud traditions and uniform.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition of several pages on an entirely different subject which reads as follows:
The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will effectively protect the life of the unborn without distinction as to stage of development.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present to the House 10 petitions certified correct by the clerk of petitions.
They contain the signatures of hundreds of constituents in my riding of Hamilton West and surrounding ridings. They call on this Parliament to reject the proposed 9 per cent goods and services tax.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition with some 51 names from Kincardine, Ontario, calling on the Parliament of Canada to restore VIA Rail service, to maintain it at its present level, to upgrade the rail service with new equipment, and to give VIA Rail sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


Mrs. Diane  Marieau@Sudbury: Mr. Speaker, for I do not know how many times I have done this now, but I am presenting again today a large number of petitions from people in my riding and adjacent ridings who are totally opposed to the proposed goods and services tax.
They are extremely worried about the effects this tax will have on inflation and on the cost of living. They humbly beg this Conservative government to withdraw its proposal.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to present a petition from 1,320 residents of Osoyoos and district in the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt with respect to a proposed storage site for PCBs at the port of entry of Osoyoos in the province of British Columbia. They say that this is inappropriate for an area such as Osoyoos which depends on agriculture and tourism for its economic survival.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the environment of the Okanagan is not jeopardized by the potential for contamination by PCBs from such a storage site and ask the government to reconsider and reverse the decision by Public Works Canada to store PCBs at the port of entry in Osoyoos, British Columbia.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege today to present to this House four petitions, all of which deal with the subject of the proposed goods and services tax.
No doubt it will come as no surprise that the citizens of my riding who have signed these petitions humbly pray that Parliament scrap the tax.
November 28, 1989


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to present this petition signed by 41 petitioners. It has been certified by the clerk of petitions.
The petitioners say that the railway passenger service carried on by VIA Rail is an essential means of transportation for many Canadians and has been part of the basic Canadian infrastructure for over 100 years and that these cuts in subsidy to VIA Rail will result in serious reduction in railway passenger service.
Therefore the undersigned call upon Parliament to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's present national network; to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment; and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first one is with respect to VIA Rail.
I have a petition with 32 names on it of Canadians who are concerned with the direction the government is taking with respect to VIA Rail.
They call upon the government to maintain VIA Rail's present national network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment, and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I also have another petition which has been presented to me by a number of producers in Saskatchewan who are concerned about the direction this government is taking with respect to agriculture in this country.
Specifically they are concerned about oats being removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, and they call upon this government to reinstate oats under the Wheat Board Act and to give barley the same protection that wheat has now.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present another petition on behalf of my Cardigan constituents, particularly from the Souris area.
Routine Proceedings
The petitioners pray that this government will bring forth legislation that will protect the foetus.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have three sets of petitions to table this afternoon. The petitions have all been certified correct as to form and content by the clerk of petitions.
I would like to table a petition signed by approximately 97 residents of Toronto, Sault Ste. Marie and Beard-more, one from Scotland and two from New York City, who are concerned about the decisions of the government with regard to VIA Rail.
They point out that these reductions in budget and service will lead to the disappearance of one-third of Canada's national railway system, if not more. They call upon Parliament to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in the House today petitions bearing the names of approximately 16,000 Canadians who work in and around the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system.
They point out in this petition that the federal government has failed to establish a national marine policy and that that in itself has contributed to the reflagging of Canadian ships and offered Canadian shipping companies a loophole whereby they do not pay taxes.
The petitioners point out that this reflagging has cost Canadians thousands of jobs, both directly and indirectly, on board ships and in the related shore-side and ship building industries, and that this has a dramatic impact on the communities as well as the federal Treasury.
The petitioners call on Parliament to endorse the concept of a Canadian international shipping registry, also known as a second registry, for Canadian ships operating in international trade outside Canada as detailed in the discussion paper prepared by Transport Canada dated September 1988.

November 28, 1989
Routine Proceedings PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I also have a number of petitions with regard to the goods and services tax signed by citizens in my community who object to the proposed tax, whether it is 9, 8, 7, 6, or 5 per cent.
Some 71 customers of Wheeler's Lumber have petitioned me, as well as 26 from G. K. Sandwich Take-Out and 26 from McMillan Grocery. I would like to table those.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 151 and 157.


Mr. Gardiner: Has the government planned celebrations in 1992 for the one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary of Confederation and, if so, in this regard, has the government (a) issued contracts to plan or help organize the events and, if so (i) what number (ii) for what amounts (b) set a budget and, if so, for what amount (c) assigned duties to departmental staff and, if so, by department, to what number of them (d) prepared a list of themes or possible events and, if so, what are they (e) prepared a study of funding provided to projects in the 1967 Centennial year and, if so, what is its title?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: No, see footnote.
A national conference, entitled "Towards 1992", which was held in Ottawa from October 10 to 12, brought together some 400 representatives from all sectors of Canadian society including the private sector. The objective was to determine how best to co-ordinate efforts in commemorating a number of significant anniversaries
being marked across the country, in 1992, including the 125th anniversary of Canadian Confederation.


Mr. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Has the Dundee Resort been sold by Enterprise Cape Breton
Corporation and, if so (a) to whom (b) for what amount (c) what
conditions were attached to the sale (d) who were the alternative
bidders?


Hon. Elmer Macintosh MacKay (Minister of Public Works and Minister for the purposes of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act):: In August 1987, the Cape Breton Development Corporation called proposals for the possible sale and future development of Dundee Resort. The Corporation received (5) requests for information and (3) proposals for development, from 1) Dundee Development Limited; 2) South Mountain Arm of Gold Community Association; and 3) Odyssey Cape Breton Limited. The Odyssey Cape Breton Limited concept was selected as the most promising project for consideration.
Dundee Resort has not yet been sold. Dundee's Board of Directors and ECBC's Board of Directors have approved the sale of Dundee Resort subject to satisfactory completion of negotiations with Odyssey Cape Breton Limited.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Thursday, November 23 1989, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.36 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 29, 1989