1989-11-08

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, there was a time when people got elected on the basis that Heaven was blue, hell was red. It now appears that, as claimed by the Liberal Member for Saint-Leonard (Mr. Gagliano): "God is a Liberal, and his son is a Christian."
Well now, Mr. Speaker, he is lucky that ridicule never killed anyone, otherwise there would be new elections in Saint-Leonard.
It is almost unbelievable that in 1989 people would utter such absurdities in order to get votes, and that hundreds of Liberals would pay to come and hear them.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals now believe that God is a Liberal and his son is a Christian, well let the son come to the House of Commons and we will see to it that he drops down into hell!


AIR DISASTER
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, on June 23, 1985, 329 innocent civilians, mostly Canadians, lost their lives as a result of a terrorist bomb explosion aboard flight 182 from Montreal to Bombay via London.
Extensive media research prominently broadcast on TV and radio has shown that this heinous crime was preventable. There were eight warnings, including a test
explosion that pointed to this impending disaster. Yet nothing was done.
Even though an official Indian government inquiry decided that a bomb had been placed on board, Canada has refused to address this matter.
Canadians have been clamouring for a public inquiry. Within the cities of Ottawa and Nepean, 700 friends and relatives of victims have signed a petition for an inquiry.
Last year, an identical terrorist bombing destroyed a Pan American passenger jet in Britain. Recommendations from the Canadian investigation could have averted this additional tragedy.
It is high time this government began the task of looking into this disaster. I strongly call upon Parliament to give Canadians a commitment to hold a royal commission of inquiry into all facts surrounding the Air India disaster of 1985.
This government should get out from under its rock and begin to take some responsibility to prevent these atrocities from ever occurring again.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for South Shore gets up in the House from time to time to claim that his riding has the biggest, fattest lobsters and the biggest, greenest Christmas trees in the whole world.
I would like to take exception to that. In any case, lobsters and Christmas trees are one thing, but there can be no doubt about blueberries. My riding has the biggest blueberries in the country. In fact, we have the biggest pickers, the best producers, the best processors and the largest shippers of fresh blueberries.
The industry is well organized and at the leading edge of technology in this field, but requires some assistance from two areas of the federal government. First, the Day Haul Program from Canada Employment has been crucial to their industry. I urge the minister to maintain this program.

5. ft 31
The producers need help in research, development and insect control. I will be asking for help from the appropriate departments in this regard.


RADIO-CANADA
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the CBC's decision not to broadcast the public affairs radio program Ontario 30 on CBOF-Ottawa any longer is unacceptable. In so doing, the Crown corporation proves that it is indifferent to Ontario's Frenchspeaking community.
Ontario 30 was a link between the various French communities in Ontario. In fact, it was the only French media program to cover all of Ontario. This management decision to end Ontario 30 in Ottawa, the national capital, is one that I regret. It will only further isolate Ontario's francophones. I therefore ask the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse)-and I see his Parliamentary Secretary here today-to intervene with the CBC on our behalf, to show that the CBC really meets the needs of the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec.


NATIONAL BURNS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to urge all members of the House and, indeed, all Canadians to acknowledge and lend their support in the recognition of National Bums Awareness Week.
Bum injuries are one of the leading causes of accidental death in Canada. Children, the elderly and disabled Canadians are the most likely to suffer severe bums. Many could be prevented by the use of smoke detectors, home escape plans and generally through increased public awareness and proper education.
For example, the execution of the "stop, drop and roll" procedure can mean the difference between a minor injury and a fatal one.
The Shriners of North America and the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs have addressed this problem,
and through their efforts, the week of February 4 to 10, beginning in 1990, is being recognized as National Bums Awareness Week.
I commend the efforts of these organizations to all Canadians and strongly urge that they support their work. I also know that the appropriate ministers, in particular, will want to lend their support in recognition of National Burns Awareness Week.


AIR DISASTER
Mr. Steve Rutland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to remind all members that this House endorsed unanimously a resolution on September 12, 1983 condemning the Soviet Union for its attack on a Korean civil airliner and the resultant death of 269 innocent people.
To date, there has been no apology or compensation forthcoming to the 10 Canadian families who lost loved ones in this incident, despite the passage of six years.
Given the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated with some regularity a consistent position, and I quote from a letter of September 29, 1988, "Canada continues to hold the Soviet Union liable for damages resulting from the downing of KAL-007", I would encourage the Prime Minister to raise this issue with Mr. Gorbachev in his upcoming visit to the Soviet Union. I would ask that the Prime Minister take this opportunity to seek a formal apology and appropriate compensation.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of taking part in the opening of the new hypertension unit at the Ottawa Civic Hospital. This revolutionary unit is designed to investigate the causes and treatment of hypertension, a major cause of disability and death in Canadians.
The unit was established through the co-operation of the hospital, government and private participants, and members of the medical community. Major funding was obtained from Sandoz pharmaceutical company as a direct result of Bill C-22, the Drug Patent Act.
November 8, 1989

This is only one example of the millions of dollars being put into medical research in Canada by the pharmaceutical companies, as promised by them as a result of Bill C-22.
This success story will be repeated all over Canada due to the foresight of this government in passing strong and progressive legislation such as the Drug Patent Act.


FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, at tomorrow's First Ministers' Conference the leaders of the Yukon and Northwest Territories governments will have official observer status. Despite requests from the territorial governments for full participant status, the federal government has not seen fit to give northerners the voice they are entitled to at these national conferences.
In a media interview in Yellowknife in September, 1988, the Prime Minister committed himself to working on a formula that would allow the territorial leaders and territorial ministers, and I quote:
-better input in the decision-making process, better presence, better chance to speak out on behalf of the territories and people in the territories.
In the 14 months since the Prime Minister made that commitment we have seen no progress on the status of the territorial government leaders at First Ministers' Conferences.
Simply having the right to make an opening statement is not good enough for the territorial leaders. It is not good enough for the people of the north who see their democratically-elected leaders shut out of the room during subsequent discussions.
This government continues to deny northerners their right to be represented in these critical national discussions which affect them in all areas whether constitutional or economic.
I urge the Prime Minister to take the concerns of the people of the north seriously and allow the two leaders of the two territories to take part in all discussions of the first ministers, as he indicated he would in September, 1988, in Yellowknife.


EAST GERMANY
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard that the cabinet of the German Democratic Republic resigned and issued a call for democratic elections of a ruling body.
This occurs following the growing exodus of people from East Germany.
By their actions yesterday, the leaders of East Germany are responding to the will of their people. We applaud the actions of East German leaders and hope that genuine steps to democracy, so well illustrated in the last week, continue in the German Democratic Republic, and that true democratic reform is peacefully accomplished in that country.


LOW LEVEL FLIGHTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, the so-called DND environmental impact statement regarding NATO flights over Innu territory completely, and one would have to assume deliberately, ignore the devastating impact these flights have on the Innu people.
This morning the Innu filed a legal action against the Government of Canada in order to stop the low level flights and prevent the establishment of a NATO base in Nitassinan. That the Innu should have to resort to this to see their rights protected is a sad statement indeed.
The Canadian government is wasting an enormous amount of money and time trying to justify the unjustifiable. Not only does its proposed base threaten the Innu people, it also represents part of NATO's FOFA strategy which is now more irrelevant than ever, given the changes taking place in Europe. Instead the government should put its efforts and resources into responding imaginatively to Soviet initiatives in Arctic security.
Gorbachev's Murmansk proposal continues to go unanswered. It is time the Prime Minister woke up and responded in a concrete and positive way. Let us see that happen when the Prime Minister visits the Soviet Union later this month.
Canada is uniquely situated geo-politically to promote disarmament in the Arctic. Let us take up our responsibility and develop policies based on common security principles rather than on confrontation and threat. Let

November 8, 1989
Oral Questions
us end the destructive and senseless flights over Innu land.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe met on the environment and just concluded its work in Sophia. Thirty-four of the 35 delegations attending agreed to a plan of action on the transboundary effects of industrial accidents, the management of hazardous wastes, and the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes.
Pollution in the Canadian Arctic and its sources in Europe was raised, but it was unfortunate that Ottawa did not instruct the Canadian delegation to use this international forum to raise as well North American transboundaiy issues, namely, acid rain and transboun-daiy air pollutants that damage ecosystems and economies. We missed an opportunity to send a strong signal to the U.S., through the U.S. delegation in Sophia.
Transboundary issues remain a high priority on our bilateral agenda, but we also must take every opportunity to raise our concerns in multilateral fora where the environment is on the agenda. We urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs not to let such opportunities slip by in future.


Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, a successful Alberta economy depends on a successful energy industry. Oil and gas development accounts for hundreds of thousands of jobs.
In the riding of Elk Island this influence is demonstrated by the presence of the Strathcona refineries. The energy industry depends on export markets. The Pacific Rim market is an important market for Alberta energy. We must continue to supply this crucial market through dependable and environmentally safe marine tanker shipments.
Let us work together to support Alberta's energy sector. Let us work together to build a stronger economy in western Canada.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Labour Council, the Toronto Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Toronto Social Planning Council, Coalition of Visible Minorities and Immigrant Women have recently produced a study on the economic and working conditions that presently exist in the city of Toronto. They have found that these conditions are changing dramatically.
Increased part-time work, temporary work and shift work has meant decreased wages and benefits and less job security for many workers. They also found that in the last three months alone plant closings have cost some 2,500 jobs in the city of Toronto. This study also found that Toronto has a generation of young people who are growing up in the city and who may never be able to live there.
This government should be setting an example as well by initiating programs that will offset the devastating impact of the free trade agreement, cutbacks to VIA Rail, slashing of unemployment insurance programs, and if they get away with it, the GST.
Rather than being a part of the solution, this government is creating the problem. It is high time it began acting in the best interests of Canadian families, rather than big business friends.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Timer@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, in an interview last night on the television program The Fifth Estate, the Minister of Finance was asked about the position of the provinces on his goods and services tax.
This is what the minister said of the provincial positions, and I cite him from the transcript: "They've agreed. Behind closed doors they'll say, ' you got to go ahead with this, Mike'. No question of that".
November 8, 1989

I would like to give the minister an opportunity to back that statement up. I invite him to give the House of Commons the names of the premiers who agree with his version of the goods and services tax. If there are any, why has he not given the House those names before?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: I am glad the hon. member is watching my performances on television.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I was referring in my response to a question put to me by Mr. Mailing, whereby I indicated that we had been discussing with the provincial financial ministers for some two years the design of the goods and services tax. At that point we hadn't called it a goods and services tax, but it is essentially the same structure that was being discussed during the meetings.
One finance minister made it quite clear that he disagreed with a consumption tax, and that is Alberta. It does not have one. I think it is quite clear why it has taken that position.
During the course of these meetings with the finance ministers they were quite in agreement with the fact that we had to change the federal sales tax, for reasons that I have expressed in this House on a number of occasions. During that period of time none of them were saying we should not be changing this FST into something like the goods and services tax.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: I want to tell the minister that I watched him last night because I like sitcoms.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, just before the opening of the important First Ministers' Conference, the Minister of Finance accused the provincial premiers of hypocrisy.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial premiers have all said many times that they are against the goods and services tax. But last night, the Minister of Finance said:
Oral Questions
In private, they say they agree, but they do not want to share the
blame. They want to get on board later, when the train is already
rolling.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that at the conference which starts tomorrow, the premiers will have comments on the Finance Minister's television program.
Can he give us-and again, I give him the opportunity to do so-the names of these provincial premiers who told him that they would take part in his goods and services tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Leader of the Opposition being interested in sitcoms. I, unfortunately, have not achieved the heights that he has of being a star of a sitcom every day in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I appreciate that the ratings are not quite as high as Bill Cosby, but he can work on that.


Mr. Speaker:: I dare say we could do something to put the ratings up around here. I will let the hon. minister do that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do the best I can.
I think I have responded to that question. We have on many occasions sat down with the provincial finance ministers, as well as the officials. Their need is not as great as ours in terms of reforming the sales tax system.
We have a sales tax that penalizes our exports, that provides imports with a one-third tax advantage relative to Canadian producers. The existing tax is prone to considerable tax avoidance.
If I asked the hon. member, would he be in support of keeping that sales tax in place, I am sure that if he were objective-possibly he will be after December 31-he would say, "Absolutely not, Mike, you had better get on with changing it as well".


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, those answers of the minister have already cost us half our ratings in the House of Commons.

November 8, 1989
Oral Questions
My final question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. He looks as if he wants to participate in some constructive way.
All the premiers to whom I have spoken have told me something quite different from the statements made last evening by the Minister of Finance. They have told me that the Minister of Finance never, ever discussed with his provincial counterparts a formal proposal for provincial participation in the goods and services tax.
Does the Prime Minister intend to put such a proposal on the table at the First Ministers' Conference? Or is he content to move ahead with a proposal that will see Canada as the only country in the world with 10 separate retail sales taxes?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if we continue with this federal sales tax, we will be the only country in the world that has a manufacturers' sales tax. We will be the only country in the world that through its tax system will deliberately tax exports to a greater extent than others and-


John Napier Turner: Oh, come on, Mike.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to have some patience for the answer. We would be the only country in the world that penalizes our exports in the way that this tax does. We would be the only country in the world that gives our imports a tax advantage relative-


Some Hon. Members:: Name one premier.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I thought I responded to that question in my first answer.
What I said in my first answer was that there was one finance minister who has said all along that he was not in favour. At no time did the other finance ministers say that they disagree with the fact that, (a) we have to change from the existing tax and (b) that the proposal that we had on the table, the national sales tax, the basic structure of which has been repeated in the goods and services tax, is the right way to go.
It was quite clear to me that they did not have the sense of urgency, the need to replace their sales taxes. That is why we decided to move forward with the goods and services tax that we believe is absolutely the right way to go for Canada.


FINANCE
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is of course aware there will be a very important conference on the economy on Thursday and Friday this week. We all know about the tensions that exist in this respect.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this: Considering the importance of this conference, and it is common knowledge that all the provinces are opposed to his proposals on the GST, is the Minister prepared to contribute towards a sensible and honourable dialogue with his provincial colleagues by withdrawing the proposed GST?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member refers to or believes is healthy. I think that the approach that we are taking to bring in a goods and services tax is a clear way to improve the health of this economy. That is precisely the reason we are going ahead with it.
I have made it quite clear that if the premiers or the finance ministers, supported by the premiers, can agree on a specific proposal, yes we are prepared to sit down and discuss that with them.
At the August meeting of the premiers and made no attempt whatsoever to even consider alternatives.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government plans to go ahead no matter what. I would ask the finance minister to comment again on his statement last night when he said in response to a question, "There's basically one exemption and that's groceries".
My question to the Minister of Finance today is this. Is he prepared to commit on behalf of his government that when the Conservative majority in this House rams through the GST against the will of the premiers, against the will of Canadians, that his government will not impose a tax either on groceries or existing housing because there are a few other exemptions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is a continuation of the line of questioning that he and his colleagues have been using since September of this year.
November 8, 1989

I have made it very clear that I am not going to make statements that are going to preclude the attention and the considerations that the finance committee is going to be having, the finance committee of which he is a member.
We have indicated that we want to listen to what the finance committee has to say and draw our conclusions accordingly. But clearly, the proposal that is on the table to which we have indicated a very strong attachment, does not provide for either of those two things in its make-up.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question, too is to the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance knows, without exception, all the premiers have opposed the tax.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: What have they proposed?


John Edward Broadbent: He knows also that there is Joe going again. Calm down over there, Joe. I hope our foreign policy is in better control, Your Honour.
Since the First Ministers are here in town, and since the Government of Canada and the premiers ought to obtain maximum co-operation on such a matter, I want to ask the minister this, considering that he said: "Behind closed doors, they'll say, 'You got to go ahead with this'. No question of that. With reference to the tax, they do not want to share the heat, they want to come in later." Will the minister either tell the House of Commons and the people of Canada the name of one premier who said that, or do the right thing and withdraw his comment entirely?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think that I have responded to that question in response to the Leader of the Opposition. In those comments on the TV program that was aired last night I was referring to the fact that the finance ministers, federal and provincial, had sat around the table for two years discussing a proposal on sales tax reform, which is the same structure as the goods and services tax. The goods and services tax is a federal only proposal. The other proposal, a national sales tax, is federal-provincial, but all the other elements are essentially the same as what we have been discussing with the provinces.
Oral Questions
With the exception of one finance minister, at no time did others say: "Look, we had better stop discussing this". It became quite clear in the way the discussion was going that we were not going to reach a resolution of this; that there was not the need on the part of the provinces to change their sales tax. There was a very clear need on the part of the federal government. That is why we decided to proceed as we have.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what the minister has said, he still has not answered the question. It is a very serious accusation, I say to the minister, to tell the people of Canada that all the premiers are systematically misleading the public. The premiers have come out strongly with the large majority of Canadians in opposition to the tax. The Minister of Finance has said, and these are his words: "You got to go ahead with this".
Can he name one minister of finance or one premier and, if so, which province, has told him to go ahead with it? Who is saying that in private, but is saying something contrary to the people of Canada? As Minister of Finance, he has a reputation to uphold, and if he is going to hurl abuse at the premiers, he has got to document that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear in the context of this that what I was referring to is the fact that we have to go ahead with the replacement of the existing federal sales tax to the goods and services tax. That is precisely the position that the New Democratic Party is stating, and you have said on many occasions-
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is shaking his head. I can show different occasions on which his party, people speaking on behalf of his party, his finance critic from the last Parliament-


John Edward Broadbent: Which premier, Mike?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -was saying that it is important. The member from Regina as well is saying that the existing federal sales tax is a mess, it must be changed, and on this basis we have got to get on with it.
People have been talking about making a change in this tax for 50 years. This is a government that is going to get on with that job.

Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, last night the Minister of Finance said that Canada's provincial Premiers had expressed their support for the concept of a GST, but he refuses to repeat that statement here in the House of Commons. The Minister of Finance should speak frankly and honestly here in the House of Commons and before all Canadians. I repeat: Will the Minister of Finance name one Premier who agrees with him on this issue? If he cannot, he should say so and withdraw his comments immediately.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the context is quite clear in the program that was aired last night that I was referring to the provinces and, in particular, the meetings that I have been having with the finance ministers. I will be quite precise with the finance ministers and with my comments about the finance ministers.
One finance minister has said that he absolutely disagrees with sales taxes and that is quite clear. It is the province of Alberta. It has made that known publicly on many occasions. But for two years I sat at the table with other provinces represented by their finance ministers and at no time did people say that we should stop talking about this.


John Edward Broadbent: Did they say go ahead with it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They agreed with the fact that we had to go ahead with the change from the federal sales tax to something like the goods and services tax and that is precisely what we are doing.


MEMBER OF THE SENATE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. We are wondering what can be made of the about-face of the Prime Minister on the Cogger affair that, to quote him, it was both forthcoming and proper for the Senate to hold hearings, and forthcoming and proper for the Senate not to hold them, both statements having been made after it became clear that the RCMP was seized of the matter.
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is, bearing in mind that there were valid concerns about the conduct
of departments and agencies in relation to Senator Cogger, as well as things done by the senator which may not amount to criminal activity but which are nonetheless unacceptable and worthy of being examined by the Senate, will the government not agree that the Senate should proceed to do its work and to do it in its own time frame?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to make a decision in the other place. I am sure that they can make their decisions on their own, and as they will.
I remind the hon. member that there is an RCMP investigation into this. It was the senator himself who asked for the Senate to set up a proper mechanism to hear this particular issue and it will decide in a normal manner. I am not sure what is so bothersome to the hon. member about that process.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am glad to hear that the government is prepared to recognize the responsibility of the Senate in the matter and for its own timing.
Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: I am having a little difficulty understanding on what basis the hon. member is asking the government in this place about what the Senate is or is not doing. It may be a very interesting inquiry, and often is, but I do not know that it has anything to do with the administration of government. I will hear the hon. member's question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Senate has a representative in the cabinet who has taken a position on this matter on behalf of the government. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, in the light of what I gather is another flip-flop today from what the Prime Minister was saying yesterday, will the government instruct its minister, the Government Leader in the Senate, not to take a position against the Senate holding hearings and holding hearings in its own time frame?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Sir, I am sure the Government Leader in the Senate will act in accordance with the customary practices that are normal. I really find it quite strange that the hon. member is troubled by this.
The opposition raised this issue on the floor of the House, action has been taken, they are still not satisfied. What more do they want?
November 8, 1989


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment. Yesterday, four respected social agencies from metropolitan Toronto, the Metro Labour Council, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Social Planning Council and the Coalition of Visible Minorities and Immigrant Women released a report to the Toronto city council calling for a city agency to address the growth of part-time jobs at the expense of full-time jobs, the growth of unemployment and to meet the need for job adjustment programs.
Given that these needs are the direct outcome of her government's policies, why is the minister ignoring these deplorable conditions in metro Toronto, and why does she remain inactive in the face of worsening social economic conditions in Toronto?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as usual, is way off base.
The government firmly believes-and I think he should listen to this-that the best response to poverty is two-fold. First is the creation of jobs that people can have to work at, and I remind him that the unemployment rate in Toronto is as low as it has ever been. The second is the training and the ability for people to take those jobs.
That is what we are doing through our labour force strategy and the Canadian Jobs Strategy where we have targeted particularly people in need. Through the programs that we have for people on social assistance, which was a program of this government, that is directed at those people who have the most needs.
It is our job as a government, and the member's job as a representative of the people of Toronto, to stand up in this House and say yes, that is what we need, and that is what is happening.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that as a former educator I long ago learned the art of listening. It is something that she might have done because if she had learned to listen she would have heard some of the horror stories about the outcome of her UI legislation. In fact, the economic regions outlined
Oral Questions
yesterday are going to make matters worse for the unemployed, particularly in major centres like Montreal and Toronto.
In view of the fact that there are over 74,000 unemployed in the city of Toronto, that there has been a job loss of over 2,400 full-time jobs in the course of the last three months alone, and that there are over 80,000 persons swelling the ranks of those who depend on food banks in the City of Toronto, largely as a result of her government's policies, and in view of the fact that the social planning council has already predicted an increase of over $10 million in costs on the welfare rolls, what steps will the minister take to discharge her responsibilities to the residents of Toronto, or is she content to shift the burden on to the municipalities that cannot afford to play the role that rightly belongs to her and her government?


Barbara Jean McDougall: I would like to remind the hon. member of two things. First, in terms of the social assistance that is provided through municipalities, as he knows, 50 per cent is paid by the federal government. It is not in our interest, nor would we want to increase those numbers.
Second, I ran for public office in the city of Toronto because of the state the economy was driven to by the party that he represents when people in Toronto were forced to sell their houses, when they lost their businesses, when they lost their jobs-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I have with me today an economic analysis by the Tourism Industry Association of Canada regarding the impact of the proposed goods and services tax.
The analysis states that under the proposed goods and services tax, tourism is slated to lose $1.2 billion a year and at least 30,000 Canadian jobs. Another analysis by the Tourism Research Institute of Canada states that under stage two the GST will lower employment in the service sector by 48,000 jobs. A third report by the hotel

November 8, 1989
Oral Questions
industry of British Columbia indicates a deterioration in the travel deficit by about $348 million.
My question to the Minister of Finance is in relation to the evidence in front of him. How can the minister say that these tax measures are good for Canada when at least-I say at least- 30,000 tourism jobs are on the line and there will be an economic loss in tourism activity of over $2 billion?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, I regret to say, has got his figures wrong. The report that he is quoting states that the phenomenal rate of growth of tourism in this country will level off somewhat briefly but it will continue. Therefore, the job losses that he is suggesting are totally fictional.
The second thing is that western Canada above all is experiencing an absolute boom in tourism in Alberta, British Columbia and the prairies. Through the operation of the GST we are now going to be giving input tax credits, something the industry has never had before. They pay the 13.5 per cent, do not get a tax credit back for it, so the costs of doing business will go down. Plus, we are bring 4,000 travel agents from all over Europe to see western Canada in about three month's time.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the minister has in fact confirmed that the jobs that could have been produced without the GST will not be produced with the GST. He has in fact confirmed that Canada's $2 billion a year travel deficit will now increase by another $348 million a year.


An Hon. Member:: Question?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Sorry, my question to the minister- Mr. Speaker, I was wrapped up in my statement.


Mr. Speaker:: So was I. The hon. member will put his question.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Thank you for the latitude, Mr. Speaker, I was so involved in the statement that I forgot the question.
My question to the minister is, does he not recognize that in fact that $348 million additional loss in Canada's trade deficit is going to increase the over-all trade deficit that Canada now experiences of some $2 billion a year?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, no, I will not agree with that. I will tell the hon. member that when he asks a question again to make sure that he reads the conference report very carefully, and that he make sure he reads the amendments to the original report that have been done giving the exemptions we have put in place.
We are exempting foreign tourists from the GST on accommodation and on products that they buy. We are the only country with a GST that will exempt accommodation.


FOREIGN AID
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, although we on this side of the House are very pleased that Mrs. Aquino leaves this country with a firm commitment from the Canadian Government for assistance totalling $125 million and also that she found the time to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph, we wonder, now that we are getting ready to welcome Mr. Lech Walesa to Ottawa, whether the government is prepared to do as much for Poland as it did for the Philippines, considering that so far, countries like Germany and France have been far more generous to Poland than the Canadian Goverment has been.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has co-operated with other countries, thereby showing a profound interest in the changes that are taking place in Poland and also in Hungary. We want to make a substantial contribution to these reforms and do so financially, but also by offering Canadian aid and expertise, in order to promote development in that part of the world. We are considering other ways in which Canada could continue to play an important part in Poland's growing reforms. Here in Canada, we have a number of Canadian citizens of Polish origin who are in a very good position to establish close links between Canada and Poland. This is a very important moment in our history.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the minister that obviously words are important but actions are even more important.
November 8, 1989

Does the minister realize that indeed Poland needs food and more money now. Will the government ensure that food will reach Poland in time for Christmas? Will the government revisit the very modest offer to Poland of a possible $20 million revolving credit to be negotiated within a very strict time frame and contingent upon an agreement with the International Monetary Fund?
Can we do better, and will we do better?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I suppose one of the realities of the parliamentary system is that any action the government takes will be described as too modest by the opposition. Even allowing that, there is no question that the needs of Poland, and indeed of Hungary, are very great. Canada participated very actively in the discussions flowing from the meeting with the Group of 7 in Paris. We have made an announcement of some of the aid that will be available from Canada, both financial aid and aid in expertise in other ways, and the question of rescheduling, as my colleague indicates.
The question is whether we are prepared to consider, along with the rest of the world, doing more. The answer of course is yes. We are prepared to consider that. We will be ensuring that the activities that Canada takes will be in conjunction with other countries interested in encouraging solid, permanent reforms in Poland.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Employees of Correctional Service Canada have been on strike since October 30.1 may add that they have had no wage increases since the end of 1986 and that their collective agreement expired in December 1987.
Mr. Speaker, this strike threatens the safety of employees who work in detention centres as well as the safety of inmates and the safety of the public, and it is particularly disturbing for Canadians and Members of this House who have detention centres in their ridings.
Oral Questions
This morning, Mr. Speaker, we heard that the parties had resumed negotiations. Could the President of the Treasury Board inform the House today about what he intends to do to keep the parties at the negotiating table so that a settlement can be reached as soon as possible?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I said last Friday in the House, the government has always been willing to return to the negotiating table. In fact, following discussions we had with the unions, an agreement was reached to return to the table as of 2 p.m. today.
Mr. Speaker, I think concrete offers may be discussed at the negotiating table, and without wishing to prejudge events, I may say we are confident that the dispute, which has been going on for more than 10 days, will be setttled in a matter of hours.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I would like to ask the minister about one tragic aspect of VIA Rail's cut-backs, the impact on Canada's disabled community.
The minister knows full well that many disabled Canadians have no other form of transportation. Buses are inaccessible, air travel is too expensive. I am sure that members opposite know about that. In the face of this, the minister lays off key personnel and cuts back services and routes.
Is this the response that the minister has to the transportation difficulties faced by Canada's disabled community?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague should know that we continue to provide services across the country, from Vancouver to Halifax. VIA Rail services will be provided, particularly in the corridor, with frequency where there are the most disabled people, and will be as accessible as in the past.
At the same time, the Department of Transport with the bus industry is investigating new buses and bus

Oral Questions
services which will also provide to the handicapped people facilities that they did not have in the past.
I understand that in the routes which have been cut, it will perhaps be more difficult, but I also know that the handicapped people understand that the finances of this country have to be managed and they agree with what the government has done with VIA Rail cuts.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I must question the sincerity of the minister. More than a year after Parliament-


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member probably did not mean what he said, but one does not here question the sincerity of other hon. members. I know he will want to put his question.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. But the facts remain, unfortunately, for the minister.
The disabled get nothing but inaction from this government. More than a year after Parliament amended the National Transportation Act to enhance accessibility of federally regulated transportation to the disabled, the National Transportation Agency has still not acted to put these amendments into effect.
Why has the minister not urged the National Transportation Agency to act on this legislation, or did the minister intentionally remain silent so as to give VIA Rail false grounds to cut personnel service for disabled Canadians?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I hope that my friend knows that the National Transportation Agency is a body independent of the minister. They can make the decision and they can apply their decision. Perhaps it was a fact when the hon. member's party was in in power, but it is not a fact on this side of the House to overrule what is done by the National Transportation Agency.
I want to say very sincerely to my friend that I was Secretary of State for two years and today it is true that with the present Secretary of State, disabled people have never been as well served as they are today.
[Translation)


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since so many people are now leaving East Germany to find a new home in West Germany, could the Minister inform the House whether the Government will offer assistance to the West German Government, and if so, how does he intend to proceed?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I just received a request for assistance from the government of the Federal Republic of Germany, asking Canada to provide temporary residence in this country for refugees who have just left the Democratic Republic of Germany. We indicated in our reply that we were willing to help.

I received a request yesterday from the West German government asking if on our military bases in West Germany there might be barracks or other space available to provide temporary housing to aid the West German government in responding to the flow of refugees from East Germany.
After consultation with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence and our commanding officers in Germany, we have replied today, the day after the request, indicating that Canada is prepared to co-operate, prepared to make barracks space and other help available to help the West German government accommodate the refugees from East Germany.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. Let me begin, first of all, by thanking the Prime Minister, the leader of my party and the Leader of the Official Opposition for the very excellent manner in which they have defended Meech Lake. I want to thank them very much.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 8, 1989


John R. Rodriguez: My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is why is it then that only the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport, along with his colleagues from Quebec, have tried to broaden the understanding of the accord? When will the rest of the cabinet fan out across the country dialoguing with Canadians to inform them that the accord is a good deal for Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member has tarnished what was a very excellent introductory remark, which I associate myself with, with the unfortunate interpretation which I think is totally inaccurate and totally wrong.
In fact, all ministers of the Crown have been speaking out in support of Meech Lake. If the hon. member has not heard any of the excellent speeches, I would invite him to read the speech made by the Associate Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who made a very excellent speech on the issue of Meech Lake and about Canada. If you want to read a very thought-provoking speech about her image of Canada, I would invite the hon. member to take a look at it and that will give him some idea of how we feel about Meech Lake.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same Minister and I want to tell him that one swallow does not a summer make. I would ask the Deputy Minister to tell us when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will make an impassioned plea for the accord in Manitoba, to the Minister of National Defence in Saskatchewan, to the Deputy Prime Minister in Alberta, and to the Ministers of Fisheries and Forestry in British Columbia?
Mr. Mazankowski Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member mentioned the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, because both he and other cabinet colleagues from Manitoba and all caucus members from Manitoba, at least from this party, made very strong representations at the Meech Lake hearings that were conducted in the province of Manitoba. The only people who were conspicuous by their absence were the members of the New Democratic Party. Where were they?
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Atlantic Canadians live in daily fear that declining fish quotas will mean the closure of fish plants and the loss of thousands of jobs for fishermen and fish plant workers. This fear is compounded by the Government's acceptance of the free trade panel ruling allowing American processors access to west coast salmon and herring.
Before accepting this panel ruling, has the Minister obtained a legal analysis from his officials assuring that this ruling cannot be used as a precedent by U.S. processors to obtain similar access to our east coast fish stocks? If so, will he undertake to make this information available to the House?
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that the panel was struck to inquire into landing regulations which this Government introduced in order to better manage and conserve our west coast salmon and herring stock. As I indicated in this House yesterday, the panel findings upheld Canada's sole jurisdiction in determining management requirements to conserve our west coast salmon and herring stocks. I will expect in time, if that question ever arose, a similar interpretation would be placed on its application with regard to all of Canada's fisheries.


Mr. LeBlanc:: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Fisheries seriously expect Atlantic Canadians to believe that American processors in need of scarce raw product will not use this ruling to obtain access to our east coast fish stock under the FTA? Now that his Government has capitulated to the U.S. and accepted this ruling on the west coast, does he actually believe that he will be able to resist pressures on the east coast?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the answer, of course, is yes. We believe that the measures we are taking with regard to our trading relations with other countries, particularly the United States in this case, will guarantee the future security of the Atlantic fishing industry, in fact all of

November 8, 1989
Oral Questions
Canada's fishing industry, because our fishing industry is an export-dependent industry. We must therefore play by the fair rules of trade and ensure our own fishermen maximum dollar for their resource by allowing them to trade and to export in a free trade arrangement with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question from the hon. member for Edmonton East, and a single question from the hon. member for Wild Rose. That will conclude Question Period.


CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday in The Netherlands, Canada joined most other industrialized countries in agreeing to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000, even though the Environment Minister is quoted as saying: "We would like to have signed something a little stronger". Also yesterday, the Minister of Energy introduced two bills to approve federal government participation in Hibernia and OSLO, two projects which will produce another 20 to 35 million tonnes a year of carbon dioxide emissions. Will the government establish new programs, such as increased support for fuel ethanol and conservation measures, that would reduce CO2 emissions by an amount equal to the 20 to 35 megatons a year by which Hibernia and OSLO will increase CO2 emissions?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right when he quotes the Minister of the Environment as saying that Canada would like to have seen something a little more substantial coming out of the conference in The Netherlands, but Canada's position will remain such that we will keep pressing both at the international and at the national level, in the various responsibilities that we have, to address the question of CO2.
On the question of OSLO and Hibernia, I find it interesting what the hon. member has asked because these bills were tabled yesterday and received first reading. The NDP is opposed to OSLO.


Ross Harvey: Wrong. Absolutely wrong.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: New Democrats are opposed to OSLO on the basis that it is going to create the difficulties the member mentioned in his question. They are opposed to having energy self-sufficiency. They are opposed to development in Alberta. They are opposed to Hibernia. I guess they want the unemployment in Newfoundland. They do not want the industrial benefits in Newfoundland. I am simply saying, you want all the benefits but you do not want to take any of the responsibility.


TOURISM INDUSTRY
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, a significant number of my constituents involved in the tourist industry are concerned about recent actions affecting their industry, namely environmental restrictions in national parks, cuts to VIA Rail, and the effects of the proposed GST on their highly concentrated service sector industry.
My question is for the Hon. Minister of Finance. Will the minister commission a study which will determine the long-term effects that the GST will have on the tourist industry, especially in western Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer my hon. friend's question. First, tourism is probably the most environmentally friendly industry in the country, and sustainable development is usually enhanced by tourism more than by any other industry.
Second, in terms of VIA Rail, we are maintaining the high volume routes in western Canada, and we are also opening an opportunity which was not there before for the private sector to move in to providing passenger rail service for tourists in the future.
In terms of a study, we have had the Conference Board study. We are going to be doing a price-value study. We are also doing a major study of the U.S. market. What it is showing us is that tourism in Alberta, British Columbia in particular, and the west is growing by leaps and bounds and will continue to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister on a point of order.
November 8, 1989


TWENTY-FOURTH ANNIVERSARY OF ELECTION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has been drawn to my attention that there are four hon. members who are today celebrating their twenty-fourth anniversary of their election to this great institution, the House of Commons of Canada. They are the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, the hon. member for Victoria- Haliburton and of course our own hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, who I know we all agree has added a lot of colour and zest to this institution.
Twenty-four years of service as the people's representative in this place is indeed something to celebrate. Their long-standing service is indeed a tribute to the excellent representation which they have provided to their constituents. Having gone through eight elections, it clearly is a demonstration that they have the confidence of the people whom they represent. I am sure I can speak for all members, I know I speak for the members of our party, when I say that all four hon. members are held in very high regard. They have contributed significantly to this institution. They have debated vigorously. They have defended their interests and the things that they believe in. But most of all, they have defended the interests of their constituents, and that is obviously why they have been sent here to represent their people on eight consecutive occasions.
On behalf of my colleagues in government and the members of the Progressive Conservative Party, I want to extend our sincerest and heartiest congratulations to all four members. It is our hope and our wish that they will continue to be with us for many, many more years and contribute in the excellent way they have in the past.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition I am pleased to join in the tribute being paid today to four hon. members of this
House of Commons
House who are celebrating the twenty-fourth anniversary of their first election to the House of Commons.
It is an honour to serve in the House of Commons even for a very limited period, but it is a signal honour to have served as long as the hon. members about whom we are talking way that they have served their constituents, it is a tribute to them for the way they have worked in this House. Their service has obviously been well recognized by their constituents and the applause today indicates how they are held in high regard by members on all sides of this House of Commons.
I am delighted on my own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the Official Opposition to pay tribute to four members of this House who are today celebrating a very important anniversary.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I rise to join with my colleagues in congratulating the senior members of the House who are continuing to serve their constituents well. I want to say on behalf of my colleagues who have worked with the four members in the past in this Chamber or in committee, we have always respected their hard work and the contribution they have made on behalf of their constituents.
I think it is the case that no matter what the party tendency for votes might be in a particular constituency, for a man or a woman to serve for this period of time in the House of Commons must mean that he or she has brought a particular contribution to that constituency or the member simply would not have been re-elected so many times. I say that as a New Democrat.
As an individual to my two Liberal and Conservative colleagues, let me congratulate them on their past work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I wish them well in the years ahead, but I hope all four will be defeated by a New Democrat in the next election.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this moment. Prime Minister for his very kind remarks today, as well as the House Leader of the Official Opposition

November 8, 1989
House of Commons
and the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I can say that it was my absolute desire to be a member of this House from the age of 14 years on and I am very, very grateful to the people in the Ottawa Valley riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke who have given me the opportunity to fulfil that desire.
There is more to it than the work in debates and so on that goes on around here. There are some very fine friendships formed. I want to say that I have made some tremendous friendships across the floor of this House, as have my other three colleagues, and we have seen some very fine people come and go from this place. As members of Parliament are raked over the coals from time to time, and almost daily, I suppose, we know among ourselves that there are some very fine people who go through this place and they are here for very dedicated reasons.
I recall very well, 24 years ago today, when I started out to visit all the polls early in the morning. The sun was shining, it was a great fall day, and by three o'clock in the afternoon I had my car in the garage putting on snow tires. Seriously, I simply want to say that there is no challenge and no amount of dedication that is too great on the part of any member of this House. It is our determination and sincerity collectively that we must work toward all good causes, for the future of Canada and on behalf of all Canadians. The more that we recall individually and collectively that we are here to support, promote and assist the people of this nation, the greater this institution will be recognized from coast to coast and from north to south in this country.
I want to thank those people who have been very good friends of all of us in this House. I particularly want to congratulate the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton who represents the riding in which I was born and who represented my father and mother and my family personally over the years.
The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants has been a very distinguished member of this House and has represented his people well. It has been a great privilege to have known him and to associate with him. Of course, the hon. member for Notre-Dame de-Grace is a very dedicated and hard working person in this House.
Among all these very dedicated people and highly respected members of this House there is no-one greater than the present Speaker of this House of Commons, and I thank you for that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. W. C. Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share the sentiments that have been expressed by my colleague. I have enjoyed this place immensely and the friendships that have been created here over the years.
Television was not here when we first arrived. I know that some people watching at home probably wonder what kind of a zoo we were really running here.
But I want to say that when we get behind the curtains and think about the great country we have, and how we are doing something to improve life and the quality of life we have here, of which a great many people throughout the world are very envious, it makes you think it is a pretty sane place here.
It is certainly a pleasure to be here. I represent a riding in the heart of Ontario-I call it the core of Ontario- which the hon. member for Renfrew briefly described a moment ago.
We have a great place to live, we have a great country to be proud of. I wish you all the very best. We will all work for the good of our country, a country that is the envy of the world.
As we pass legislation in this place with this bickering and carrying on, I know it is very, very hard for people watching to understand. But what makes it all great is the spirit and understanding we have here as we work together. It is a pleasure to join with my friends today on this very special occasion. I am proud to be a member of the House of Commons and I am proud of our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I was awfully glad that my good friend the Deputy Prime Minister stood because I did not know who was going to stand to recognize us here. We had on these little boutonnieres, and I am not a great flower man. I was really very glad the Deputy Prime Minister did catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to recognize my colleagues in the House who were elected on November
November 8, 1989

8, 1965. I am not going to make a long speech but my mommy told me years ago to be prepared. I knew that something might happen today once I got the flower in my lapel. I received an ode from my best supporter and I think the other three members will share some of the thoughts that came through the fax machine today.
My good colleague, the member for Victoria-Hali-burton, mentioned the humanity shown here, and I know this seems trite perhaps for the outside world and even some members, but this used to be a much more human place before we all got too busy with so many things, with computers and fax machines. I am wearing the boutonniere because I knew the date was coming, but it was yesterday when my friend from Renfrew slipped behind the curtain and said, "Pat, tomorrow is a little anniversary". He gave me a great big boutonniere that I still have here in my desk. I had almost forgotten about it, but the hon. member confessed, in the humility that sometimes overcomes this place, that: "I am going to wear a red ribbon tomorrow but for you I have a pale blue one. I could not get royal blue but at least it is blue". I notice my friend is wearing the same thing. I obviously want to thank the people in my riding. Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec are represented by the four being honoured here today. It has been a fantastic experience. I really do not know if the time goes more quickly if you are in opposition or if you are in government. Different ratios apply.
This morning over the fax I got something I would like to read. Having thanked my riding in public and all the people who sent me here, I also thank my great friend, the Hon. Member from Oshawa who is a cigar smoker, in spite of one of his colleagues. I am still a cigar smoker in spite of some edicts from the Chair. I have to watch where I do it now. But here is what came through the fax. It is called an ode:
A score and four years ago was a very important date cos there was an election on November 8. Through these 24 years there's still fire in the belly even though some constituents quiver as a bowl of jelly
Many issues have caught your attention, only a few will we mention: Greenwood and VIA, Scott's Bay and Meech, Doug Small and legions, and Harbourville Beach
Routine Proceedings
Leadership contests, and presidential ones too, French immersion and committees. Is there anything you wouldn't try to do? Through tears and laughter, fun and some pain, I'm sure we'd do it all over again
But for this moment in time in our great nation, I send you love and my congratulations on 24 years of work and fun. Lookout world, he's just begun
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I want to thank you for everything.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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


[Stage Direction]
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1990, was presented by the Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Robert René de Cotret: That, pursuant to Standing Orders 81(5) and 81(6),
Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1990, laid upon the Table earlier this day, be referred to the several
Standing Committees of the House as follows:
Mr. Speaker, since the reference of the Supplementary Estimates (B) to the various committees is detailed and the list is long, if the House agrees, I would ask that it be printed in Hansard at this point without being read.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the President of the Treasury Board. Is that agreed?

November 8, 1989
Routine Proceedings


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 6b, 7b, 15b and L20b
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture
Agriculture, Votes 5b, 15b, 20b, 30b and 50b
To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture
Communications, Votes lb, 10b, 25b and 30b
To the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations
Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Votes lb, 5b, 25b and 27b Industry, Science and Tfechnology, Vote 95b Public Works, Votes 22b and 26b Supply and Services, Votes lb, 3b and 5b Treasury Board, Votes lb, 5b and 25b To the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources Energy, Mines and Resources, Votes 30b and 40b To the Standing Committee on Environment Environment, Votes lb, 5b and 15b
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade
External Affairs, Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 30b and 42b To the Standing Committee on Finance Finance, Vote 30b
National Revenue, Votes 10b and 15b To the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries Forestry, Votes lb and 10b
To the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women
National Health and Welfare, Vote 65b
Tb the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 31b, 40b and 45b
Industry, Science and Technology, Votes lb, 10b, 25b, 30b, 32b, 33b, 36b, 55b, 60b and 65b
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General Justice, Votes lb, 40b and 45b
Solicitor General, Votes 10b, 20b, 25b, 30b and 40b
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration
Employment and Immigration, Votes lb, 10b, 15b, 16b, 20b and 30b
Tb the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship Secretary of State, Votes 15b and 20b
To the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
National Defence, Votes 5b, 10b and 20b Veterans Affairs, Votes 2b and 15b To the Standing Committee on Transport Privy Council, Vote 6b
Transport, Votes 10b, 17b, 20b, 30b, 46b and 65b


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I am pleased to table in both official languages the government's response to the first report of the Standing Committee on Labour Employment and Immigration, Immigration of Lebanese Citizens to Canada.



ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages the number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government pursuant to section 110(1).



STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report
November 8, 1989

of the Standing Committee on Transport in both official languages. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a comprehensive response to this report within 150 days.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



BROADCASTING OF PROCEEDINGS

["I thank the Hon. Member for giving me advance notice of his request, under the circumstances. I listened carefully to the Hon. Member's request, but I must say that an emergency debate is certainly not appropriate at this time. Of course, this is a very important subject for all Canadians and I thank the Hon. Member for raising it."]
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you a draft motion for consideration of the House. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business be authorized to broadcast an advertisement concerning the order of reference on the broadcasting of the House and committees dated June 8,1989, from November 9, 1989, to November 27, 1989, on the parliamentary channel.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. minister have consent to introduce the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Prud'homme:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have both the honour and the duty to present a petition which contains hundreds of names from constituents of mine in the federal riding of Brant who decry the cutbacks of VIA Rail. The petition states, we the undersigned call upon the government to live up to its original pledge to support VIA Rail and to abandon plans for further cuts to VLA's budget, and to provide the necessary resources to allow VIA Rail to operate as a modem effective transportation company rather than as a museum.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, it was in July, 1985, that Charles Ng, wanted to stand trial for 13
Routine Proceedings
brutal murders in the United States, entered our country, was before our courts and is in our institutions now. We have learned recently that his lawyer is appealing the extradition signing of the justice minister and we are about to see another line of appeals before our appeal system federally, including the Supreme Court of Canada.
These 899 petitioners are urging the Canadian government to streamline its extradition laws so that Canada does not become a haven to escape American justice for these wanted convicts from the United States. This brings the total to 92,746 such petitions entered into the House of Commons from Canadians coast to coast.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and responsibility to table petitions signed by hundreds of citizens in the Sudbury basin, such places as North Bay, Chelmsford, Blezard Valley, Val-Therese, St. Charles, Copper Cliff, Azilda, Lively, Naughton, Whitefish, Falconbridge, Skead, Sturgeon Falls, Dowling, Coniston, Markstay, Sudbury, Garson, Capreol, Val Caron, Hanmer and Wanapitei.
These hundreds of citizens who have signed these petitions point out that the government's proposed goods and services tax is a regressive tax. They reject it on the basis of regressivity.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax. They also ask Parliament to ensure that if and when there is broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax it not be the opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege today to table 68 petitions which have been certified correct by the clerk.
These 68 petitions contain the signatures of 1,443 residents from Thunder Bay, Nipigon, Kakabeka Falls, Dorion, Red Rock and other small communities in northern Ontario. The petitioners want to impress upon this House their strong opposition to the government's proposed goods and services tax.

November 8, 1989
Routine Proceedings
The increased burden of taxation placed on the middle income people of this country is just so repressive and so domineering that they need some assistance, and they ask this House for its help.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this is a duly certified petition that I am honoured to present to the House on behalf of individuals living in Hamilton, Toronto, Woodbridge, and other regions around metro Toronto who wish to express their strong and deeply felt opposition to the proposed general sales tax.


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


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a certified presentation signed by residents of the community of Arviat in my constituency. These citizens of the Keewatin region of the Northwest Territories call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax which will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle income groups.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of several hundred petitioners from Prince Edward Island to present three petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36, asking this Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax in the name of all Canadians.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a number of signed petitions which are against the goods and services tax. These are in addition to the 30,000 cards that I gave to the Minister of the Finance last week.
These people are from the communities of Brandon, Oxford House, Leaf Rapids, Deloraine, Ilford, Yorkton, Saskatchewan, Pickertonei, Dauphin, Winnipeg, Lac Brochel, Moose Lake, Wekusko, Nelson House, Lac du Bonnet, Gillam, Cranberry Portage, The Pas, Bird, Wabowden, Flin Flon, Split Lake, Thompson, South Indian Lake, Tadoule Lake, Sundance, Pukatwagan, Denare Beach, Saskatchewan, Hudson Bay, Saskatchewan, Cross Lake, Easterville, Sherridon, Wanless, Wa-terhen, Bissett, Snow Lake, Creighton, Saskatchewan, Thornhill and Winkler.
Just to prove how unpopular it is there are also people from Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A. who reject the government's proposal.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table today 15 more petitions that object strongly to the government's proposal to impose on Canadians a new goods and services tax.
I have never been witness to such a display of discontent with a government proposal on the part of the people of my riding.
These petitions state that the Conservative government has imposed upon Canadian taxpayers at least 31 new taxes or tax increases since taking power in 1984. At the present the federal manufacturers' sales tax has already been increased by this same government from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent. The Conservative federal government wants to impose on Canadians a new general 9 per cent tax on goods and services, which will be hidden from Canadians and will be applied to virtually everything they buy.
The imposition of this new general goods and services tax will cause serious and unfair hardship to lower and middle income Canadians. The imposition of this tax will create an onerous burden on small business. This proposal will hit Canadians with higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax of the Tories.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present to the House ten petitions signed by residents of my riding of York West in Toronto.

As my colleagues from all parts of the House would confirm, these are petitions coming from average Canadians on real streets, living in real neighbourhoods, in all parts of the country including my riding of York West.
They are petitioning against yet another new tax. Since 1984, this is the thirtieth change or new imposed tax. The goods and services tax is definitely the most regressive tax hitting not only average Canadian families but also Canadian small businesses.


Mr. Speaker:: I urge hon. members to present their petitions, and I think everybody understands the rules.
November 8, 1989


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present these petitions and request that the goods and services tax be flatly rejected. It will be by this side of the House.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions from the cities of Hamilton, Thunder Bay and St. Catharines, Ontario, with 1,453 signatures.
The petitioners are united in their abhorrence of the taking of precious human life through abortion and believe in the rights of all unborn children. They call upon Parliament to pass legislation that will protect life from conception.
I fully support them in their endeavour to protect future generations of Canadians.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present the following petitions which have been certified by the clerk of petitions.
The first group of 26 petitions contains the signatures of 768 residents of Sarnia, Ontario. In fact, the people of Sarnia, Ontario think this is such an important tax to oppose that they themselves have come here. There are two representatives from Sarnia in the House watching these petitions being presented on their behalf. I commend them for showing such an interest in opposition to the government.
The second group of 12 petitions contain the signatures of 201 residents of Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Saskatoon, Princeton, British Columbia and of Colling-wood, Stratford and Toronto, Ontario. These citizens humbly call upon the government to withdraw its proposal for a regressive and inflationary goods and services tax.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to present to this House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions certified correct as to both form and content from residents of Eglinton- Lawrence and other ridings in the area of greater metropolitan Toronto.
They call upon this government and this Parliament to fight vigorously for the withdrawal of the proposed goods and services tax which they see as the most regressive
Routine Proceedings
form of taxation addressing itself in a particularly pernicious fashion to the aged, the young, and the unemployed.
To those I will add another additional 800 stubs sent in by clients of McDonald's on Avenue Road and on Yonge Street. They are clearly directed to the Minister of Finance and I can tell you as much because of the refinement of the language.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, again I rise as spokesman for 1,196 people who signed three certified petitions from residents of the riding of Hull-Aylmer who call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax proposed by the Conservative government, a tax which is complicated and unfair to all Canadians.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, it is a special pleasure for me to be able to present a petition signed by over 2,000 Calgarians humbly praying that Parliament may be pleased to reject the GST.
The reason this is such a special pleasure for me is that all these signatures were collected by one woman, a Ms. Heidemarie Meding, a single mother and student in Calgary. She collected them during the summer and early fall and gave them to me at the anti-GST rally held in Edmonton on the evening of Monday, October 2, a rally I am certain everyone in this House is familiar with.
My congratulations to Ms. Meding, and here are the names.


Mr. Speaker:: We are certainly familiar with it now, but I would ask hon. members to stay within the rule.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, which has been certified correct as to form and content.
The petitioners state that a tax on goods and services is an aggressive tax that hits low and middle income earners the hardest. Canadians are already overtaxed and a further tax burden could adversely affect the economy.

November 8, 1989
Routine Proceedings
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to abolish plans to implement the 9 per cent tax on goods and services.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and the honour to present petitions on behalf of hundreds of my constituents.
These petitions have been certified correct as to form and content and relate to the GST. I will not go through the litany of complaints against the GST because Your Honour has already heard the complaints from other petitions presented in the House this afternoon.
The petitioners believe that the GST is very, very bad legislation and is not in the interest of this country. They ask this House to reject the tax.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty, responsibility and pleasure to present another petition. It too has been certified correct as to content and form.
This petition relates to national unity. The petitioners are concerned not only about national unity but minority rights in Canada. They are concerned about the future of Canada. They are particularly concerned about the effects of legislation in the province of Quebec known as Bill 178, which they believe is contrary to the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedom.
The petitioners believe sincerely that this bill is a mistake and is not in the best interests of this country which we all love so much.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition under Standing Order 36 on behalf of residents of Bums Lake, Francis Lake, Grand Isle, Whitehorse, Kelowna, Vancouver, Fort St. John, Kamloops, Fruitvale, Trail, Osoyoos, Rock Creek, Castlegar, and the list goes on and on.
The petitioners are residents of all sorts of western Canadian communities and point out a whole set of concerns against the goods and services tax. They are asking the Government of Canada to come to its senses and drop the whole matter.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on another matter, signed by a number of westerners again, asking the government to reconsider its decision to curtail VIA service and suggesting that the government improve and modernize VTA service, particularly because of its environmentally sound way of transporting large numbers of people.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 35 electors from Kingston and the Islands who object to the government's goods and services tax and call upon Parliament to reject the tax as being unfair and inequitable.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition, duly certified by the clerk.
This petition is from my constituents in Bridge Cove, Red Head Cove and Petrie on Random Island. The petitioners are concerned about Bill C-21 and the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
They are particularly concerned that the Government of Canada is withdrawing its contribution of $2.9 billion to the unemployment insurance fund and leaving the financing to the workers and employers. They are also concerned about some of the other negative effects it will have on them, particularly the job development strategy which essentially will preclude them from building infrastructure in their community to seek employment.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to propose more meaningful reforms and in particular to call upon the government to come up with an effective regional development policy.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and responsibility to present two petitions signed in the main by residents of the Gabriola Island and Nanaimo in my riding. This petition is presented under Standing Order 36 and has been certified proper.
November 8, 1989

The petitioners state that the Constitution of Canada, pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, guarantees to all Canadians the right to freedom of expression.
Whereas the government of the province of Quebec has abridged that right by enacting legislation, Bill 178, restricting the right to freedom of expression in the English language, the petitioners pray that this Parliament pass a resolution of the House of Commons urging the Governor General in Council to give full force and effect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the exercise of its constitutional power of disallowance with respect to Bill 178 of the province of Quebec.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I have two other petitions signed by Duncan area residents. In this case the petitioners are calling upon the government to live up to its original pledge to support VIA Rail, to abandon plans for further cuts to VIA's budget, and to provide the necessary resources to allow VIA to operate as a "modern, effective transportation company rather than a museum".


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the pleasure to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from my constituency. The residents are from the royal city of New Westminster in British Columbia. The petitioners are concerned about the pay back of old age security benefits. They feel that this is an attack on universality, and a betrayal of commitments made by the government to seniors in Canada. They suggest that all high income Canadians should pay their fair share of taxes.
The petitioners call upon this Parliament to reject the government's policy to initiate inequitable and unjust clawback of old age security benefits.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of producers from western Canada who are concerned about the removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board.
The petitioners are concerned because they do not feel that they were properly consulted prior to this decision by the government, nor did the government
Routine Proceedings
consult the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee or the major farm organizations in western Canada. They are concerned about the future of orderly marketing in this country.
The petitioners call upon the government to place oats and barley under the Wheat Board Act with the same protection that wheat now presently has so that farmers will be protected in future.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour and privilege to present 17 petitions containing the names of 505 residents of Stormont-Dundas.
These residents of Cornwall, Long Sault, Morewood, Chrysler, Winchester, Chesterville, South Mountain, Iroquois, Morrisburg, Brinston, Williamsburg, Ingleside, Moose Creek, Avonmore, Berwick, Lunenburg and Williamstown believe that the Conservative government's proposed 9 per cent goods and services tax is totally unacceptable as it will cause serious and unfair hardship for low and middle income Canadians and will create an onerous burden on small businesses.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon this House to reject the proposed 9 per cent goods and services tax.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and pleasure to present to this House nine petitions signed by over 300 individuals from the riding of Dartmouth who are opposed to the proposed goods and services tax of this government.
The petitioners are opposed to it because it is a hidden tax, one that they say is unfair, will be a major burden on small business and an unprecedented tax grab. They believe it will cause higher inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment.
The petitioners call upon this government to reject this proposed tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

November 8, 1989
Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-14 standing in the name of the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.


[Stage Direction]
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the federal
criteria for new forestry agreements with the provinces.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the release of these criteria prior to the completion of the federal-provincial agreements will be detrimental to the future conduct of the federal-provincial relations, and for this reason I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think the appropriate move at this point would be to transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice earlier today of my intention to ask leave at this time to move, pursuant to Standing Order 52, the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important matter requiring urgent consideration; namely, the Meech Lake Accord.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the Conservative Government and the Prime Minister himself keep repeating that the Meech Lake Accord is identical to the five demands of the Government of Quebec. It is the duty of the House, Mr. Speaker, to remind Canadians that these are two different things and to ask the first ministers to pursue their efforts to meet the demands of the Government of Quebec while respecting the national interest.

To say that it is Meech Lake or nothing else, take it or leave it, is unacceptable. Canadians want the first ministers to do their duty to the country. The first ministers should know that this House also wants them to do their duty to the country.

Just because a particular proposal has encountered some opposition does not meet the country will end. Indeed, a public opinion poll released today shows that most Canadians and most Quebecers believe that the Meech Lake Accord should be changed. In Quebec, 52 per cent are in favour of amending it, compared to 39 per cent who want it accepted as is.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the first ministers must respect the will of the Canadian people and Members of this House should have the opportunity to debate this urgent matter. Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for giving me advance notice of his request, under the circumstances. I listened carefully to the Hon. Member's request, but I must say that an emergency debate is certainly not appropriate at this time. Of course, this is a very important subject for all Canadians and I thank the Hon. Member for raising it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tbesday, November 7, consideration of motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the last time I spoke in this place on the issue before us, I began by saying that I speak on behalf of those women who have been faced with bearing a child not of their choosing. Today, once again, I rise on behalf of those same women.
November 8, 1989

Since I first uttered those words we have had no law in this country regarding abortion. In the view of many women including myself the absence of legislation appeared to respect what I believe, that the judgment of women faced with a difficult decision and their capacity to make a better decision than anyone in this chamber on their behalf was respected in that environment.
In my own mind I have always taken it for granted that as a part of the process of a woman making that decision, she would seek the advice and the consultation that she requires with the father of the child and with her family, or she may choose not to seek it but that she would seek medical advice.
Whatever discussions she chose to have or not to have, ultimately it would be her decision. But as time passed it became clear that the situation for women was not more stable in the absence of legislation but indeed the reverse. Some provincial governments took action against the interests of women. The number and intensity of civil actions increased.
In my earlier speech as well, I reminded the House that I am not a minister of God, I am a minister of the Crown, and I continue to take those responsibilities as a minister of the Crown very seriously. In light of this new situation, what is my responsibility as a legislator, along with that of my cabinet colleagues?
We have heard some discussion in this chamber around when life begins. I pointed out then that society and religion over the centuries have had differing views including such things as that the soul enters an unborn baby boy after 40 days and a girl after 80 days, that the soul enters the unborn child at the time of quickening when the woman feels the foetus moving for the first time. We as parliamentarians are not the ones to determine that, and certainly the woman bearing the child is far better qualified after seeking her own religious counsel.
As a legislator my objective in this process was that we provide a stable legislative framework whereby a woman would have entitlement to the medical services she requires when faced with this profound decision. This required first of all an examination of the federal powers in this regard. They are more limited than I would like.
Government Orders
Under the Canada Health Act, which at first glance to many of us seemed the most appropriate vehicle, the Government of Canada is not in a position to specify abortion as a required service. My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has gone into his role and that of the Canada Health Act in some detail, and I will not repeat his arguments. I am sure he would agree that we examined exhaustively this possibility.
Second, if we are to have legislation there will of course be sanctions. What will they be? Many women, including myself, wanted legislation outside the Criminal Code. Once again we had few models. One of them was the Narcotics Act. Even there the sanctions remain criminal sanctions, so where is the advantage to women in that?
Once again, after lengthy discussion our conclusion was that our powers were limited to the Criminal Code. This is not a happy conclusion for me, not by a long way. But what we were able to define was that only the person who induces an abortion outside the law should have sanctions applied. This means that women are protected from the fear of prosecution except under very unusual circumstances and that is an improvement over the former law, albeit a marginal one, for women.
For medical practitioners they are not any more at risk of prosecution than they are under the criminal provisions that guide their behaviour in other aspects of their daily practice. Doctors and others with medical responsibility will in the future, as they have in the past, apply high standards of medical ethics to the role that they are called upon to play.
The thrust of this legislation then is to define abortion as a medical act. Based on a definition of health and wellness, it entitles women to abortion under a wide variety of circumstances. In my view this will assist in providing the stable legislative and societal framework which I was seeking.
Sadly, as a federal government we cannot guarantee access, something that women have been asking us to do. What we have done is ensure, to the extent possible, that provinces take their responsibility in this issue seriously and that they live up to their jurisdictional responsibilities in that regard. For women, this may mean that they must continue to press for the right to choice in other venues. I know that they will do that and I support their efforts.

Government Orders
Let me say to them, as I have had to conclude myself, that we do not live in a country where the public supports a woman's capacity to choose totally without some societal rules. That is certainly true of this chamber. It is also true of the wider nation. I reach this conclusion based on many, many telephone calls and letters and personal conversations over these past months. Out of all those opinions put forward, and there were many variations I would grant, if there was a consensus at all it was that this is a matter for a woman and her doctor.
I would remind the House that when the last motion on this issue was before the Chamber, a few people, including myself, supported an amendment-in fact it was the amendment that I was speaking to at that time-that says that such legislation should prohibit the performance of an abortion except when performed by a qualified medical practitioner.
I would also remind the House that essentially this is what we are being asked to support with this bill with more clarity and therefore, the stability that I seek. Some day perhaps, in a more perfect world, public attitudes and the vehicles through which we must act will respect the sensitivity and judgment of women as I do. That day is not today. I therefore support this bill and participated, as others did, in its authorship. We all approached this with respect and sensitivity.
I would urge those members of this Chamber who want to provide the framework for women, in the world as it is and not in the world as we would like it to be, to find it in their hearts to support this motion. We all in this Chamber hold our principles very high. We are here as parliamentarians to stand up for what we believe, but also to seek consensus and to respect the common will. I know that on an issue of this importance members will seek to do so in a spirit of sensitivity and goodwill.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate how difficult this issue is for the minister. I also appreciate that she spoke almost two years ago in the House. I had the opportunity to go back and read her speech very carefully and I was quite moved by it.
I listened very carefully to what the minister who is responsible for the status of women had to say today. I am pleased that she is here and that she is prepared to take part in the debate.
The minister mentioned that this new criminal legislation will provide a stable legal framework for the women of Canada. My contention is that there is no need for criminal legislation in this area. I do not understand how this is an improvement for women over the situation that we have right now where there is no legislation and, in particular, no criminal legislation. So I ask how this would create a more stable situation than the one that we have right now.
I also listened very carefully when the minister spoke about access. We both recognize that access is a problem and she contends that the problem is with provincial jurisdictions. She has urged women to work in other venues, I think was the way she put it. I know that they will work in those other venues but I think that they will continue to work for access in this venue. There is a variety of legal opinions about the Canada Health Act and the ability of the government to provide for access under the act. Some very prominent lawyers feel that that is, of course, available to the federal government.
I ask in particular for her comments about a stable legal framework and how that is an improvement over the situation now without any criminal legislation.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think that what we have in the present situation where we have an absence of legislation, and I have certainly thought about this very carefully, is that with an absence of legislation, with abortion not defined as a medical act, there is more reason for other jurisdictions to say that it does not fall under their jurisdiction to provide a service. I think providing entitlement, as we have, and pronouncing it in the national interest and as the will of Parliament as a medical act gives comfort to women as they seek that access through other jurisdictions. As I have said, I would certainly support them in doing that.


Ms. Langan:: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to thank the minister for taking part in this debate. Further to the comments of the hon. member from New Westminster- Burnaby, now that we have some jurisprudence established as a result of the Chantal Daigle case, and guidelines that would limit court challenges, how does she view us not being faced with many tests in the future,
November 8, 1989

based on the new legislation, which will again drag women through the courts on this issue?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, in the past there have been civil actions, both under the old Criminal Code provisions and also in a world in which there was not legislation. We are here to legislate, that is our job as parliamentarians. In fact, we were essentially directed by the court to legislate. Legislation that has the will of Parliament behind it will provide a more stable framework. That stability does come from the two venues that I talked about; first of all, the entitlement that therefore should lead to a position in the provinces whereby access can be provided with the backing of Parliament and, second, although I recognize that there will be civil suits, no doubt, again I think that they will be lessened in an atmosphere when Parliament has spoken as well as the courts.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for her response, although I may not share her view. I would like to ask two questions. One, how will that help the women of Prince Edward Island? Second, yesterday I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question with regard to federal government "interference" in the provinces on the question of access. I asked him if the government would not consider intervention if a whole province refused, for example, to undertake open heart surgery, heart surgery or cancer treatment. The federal government would have something to say under the Health Act. The minister did not choose to answer my specific question. I wonder if this minister could possibly answer.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would not, in any way, try to interfere with the prerogatives of my colleague under the Canada Health Act. I do believe that with the kind of legislation that we are presenting today it will be more difficult for a province, within its own jurisdiction, to justify to the women of that province that it is not prepared to provide access.
Throughout the country now we do see people seeking medical services in other provinces for particular reasons because of the kind of expertise that builds up in particular areas. So, I think that it would be very rare for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to suggest that every province has to provide every medical service
Government Orders
to the ultimate of its sophistication. Our job is to ensure that under the Canada Health Act, we have a universal and accessible system with the principles as outlined in the act.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. As I read the legislation, it appears to place the onus of responsibility on the doctor. There has been a great deal of concern expressed to me since the legislation was introduced last Friday that under certain circumstances many doctors may feel extremely reluctant to perform that kind of operation on a woman in case of litigation. A young woman may go and see a doctor who happens to hold a pro-life position and the doctor will refuse to perform that operation. That young woman may then go to another doctor who may feel, under another set of circumstances, that such an operation is indeed justified. What happens to that second doctor under these circumstances? Would that not lead to other litigation in the courts and the Chantal Daigle case all over again?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think that that is reaching very hard into the kinds of behaviour that people show. That is why I said in my statement that both women and medical practitioners must exercise their judgment in this case. No one can force a doctor or anyone else to perform an operation that that doctor does not want to perform. That will not change under this legislation. It did not change when there was no law. So if a woman seeks to exercise her choice under the bill that we have presented, then medical practice, which has standards from its own association regarding the performance of any kind of surgery will be there to support the doctor that the woman seeks out.
I would also say that this is not new either. The medical association has established standards of practice. This will give it the legislative framework which essentially supports standards of practice and we have to rely on behaviour and judgment.
I come to this House saying that women have judgment. I believe that doctors have judgment and that they have the capacity and the ability to choose. I have always argued that those are the important reasons to give women choice. I have not altered my opinion. I think

November 8, 1989
Government Orders
that within the legislation we have provided they will be able to do that better than they can without a law.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of the matter, I have to say at the outset that this government has been totally negligent in waiting so long to bring forth this legislation. It has been nearly two years since the Supreme Court of Canada declared the previous law unconstitutional. Since then we have had nothing but procrastination and delay. This government has dillydallied, refusing to face up to its responsibilities and, of course, allowing the type of judicial chaos we had during the summer.
Suddenly the minister is trying to rush it through this House. I want to tell him that we will try to be as constructive as we can, but we do not accept the cavalier attitude that the government has shown towards Parliament in dealing with the issue, nor do I believe the people of Canada appreciate that attitude.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Government had promised on many occasions that it would introduce a bill at its earliest convenience, to use the very expression used by Ray Hnatyshyn, the predecessor of the current Minister of Justice, who apparently is in line for the job of next Governor General of Canada. But this Government has produced nothing except, in July 1988, a multiple choice questionnaire which has lead us nowhere.
It has been totally inexcusable for the government to leave this matter on hold for nearly two years. Finally, we have now a bill in a context where all Members can consider the situation very closely.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a very sensitive moral dilemma. It is a dilemma which, on the one hand, has an impact on the life of every individual, and on the other hand, has major social consequences for our country. No woman could decide lightly to have an abortion. A woman could only consider it with a lot of anxiety and suffering as a last recourse solution. There is no one here who would trade places with a woman faced with such a decision. I suggest that for those of us who are not women this situation is just impossible to fanthom. The fact remains that in the real world, thousands of Canadian women must face this decision.

Analysing the situation, there could be no more difficult issue for those of us elected by our constituents than to respond to this issue on a national basis. It is not the responsibility of the legislatures. I do not believe it is primarily the responsibility of the courts. It is the responsibility of members of Parliament.
Within our society there are two diametrically opposite and opposed views on abortion. I can appreciate completely the strength, honesty, and commitment of the convictions of both the pro-life and pro-choice advocates. One group of Canadians believes fundamentally that it is a question of the sanctity of life, the protection of life. The other group believes, also fundamentally, that it is a question of a woman's control over her own body, it is a question of personal liberty and security of her person.
There is no way that these two views can be reconciled philosophically. There is no way these two opposing views can be reconciled theologically or indeed politically. 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.
So what is our duty here? How do we approach the matter? It is our duty, as legislators, to attempt to find that uneasy accommodation between those two points of view. As I have indicated, in arriving at a judgment, the Liberal caucus members are free to vote as they see fit. This is not a partisan matter and we will not treat it in a partisan fashion.
In a pluralistic society such as we have in Canada, with a separation of church and state, no official religion, with a wide variety of moral views, with a growing variety of cultural traditions, a wide spectrum of religious upbringing, our responsibility as legislators is somehow to seek the common good. Our duty is to seek the best equilibrium we can between the two polarized and competing views on the subject of abortion, between two irreconcilable views on abortion.
I come to the subject with a strong conviction that my duty, and I believe our duty, is not to impose our own beliefs rigidly on the views of others who may strongly disagree. Each of us has the right to his own moral perspective. Each of us has the right to express that view clearly. Each of us has the right to try to convince others
November 8, 1989

of his point of view. On the other hand, each of us has a duty to listen to the other point of view.
I believe, therefore, that as members of Parliament, as legislators, we have the responsibility not only not to impose our personal views on a final legislative decision in this type of community in which we live but not to allow our own personal views, no matter how deeply held, and no matter on which side of the issue they may be, to be the sole criterion by which we judge this legislation. An equally important standard in our pluralistic community must be to evaluate this legislation as to whether or not it is the best available accommodation in moving toward the common good.
I do not believe that the majority of Canadians would agree that we should prohibit all abortions. I do not believe that that is where the country is. On the other hand, I do not believe that the majority of Canadians would agree that we should not exercise some control over abortions, particularly in the later stages of pregnancy as suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I have read the Supreme Court judgment. I have lived with this issue for 20 years. I am willing to admit that this legislation perhaps does not fully respond to the test I have just outlined as set forth by the Supreme Court. There may be better words to describe what we are trying to achieve. By removing the requirement in the earlier legislation for therapeutic abortion committees in accredited hospitals, which the Supreme Court found to be impediments to a woman's rights, I believe that the proposed legislation is a serious effort to find the accommodation necessary to resolve the issue in Parliament. At the very least, it deserves further scrutiny by the committee. That is why I propose to vote to allow it to proceed to committee.

Because I feel that this Bill should be further examined and discussed in committee. It is not possible here in the House to consider all its details, its implications and all the advice, either legal or medical.
The basic question about this Bill is whether it is likely to be approved by the Supreme Court judges. Is the Bill consistent with the principles of our Charter of Rights? Is it Charterproof, a legal expression which is not easily
Government Orders
translated, or do we run the risk of seeing the Supreme Court rule at the very first opportunity that it is unconstitutional, with the instruction to go back to the training board or, even worse, to give up altogether?
Whatever the ruling of the Supreme Court on this issue, it is now our responsibility, as legislators, to convey to it the views of Parliament. These judges must know how the Members of the House feel collectively before ruling on individual cases.

Many observers have pointed out, and those of us in Parliament who have read the judgments know, that the judges gave Parliament a great deal of advice as to how the new law should be framed. Not all of that advice has been followed by the minister. For example, with regard to the retention of criminal liability on the part of a woman who obtains an abortion, Chief Justice Dickson stated in the Morgentaler judgment: "Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations is a profound interference with a woman's body".
Nor was the advice of Madam Justice Wilson followed with regard to the question of gestational limits and foetal rights. She said: "The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state's interest in its protection becomes compelling I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all the relevant disciplines. It seems to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester".
As my colleague for York Centre has said, could there be a clearer invitation to the government to provide such limitations? Here again we are, of course, as legislators, free to interpret the collective wisdom of the court. Certainly we have a duty to respond to the current situation.

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to prejudge how a committee of the House will approach its work, but it will certainly want to examine all the aspects of the issue in a very detailed fashion and listen attentively to the widest possible variety of opinions and views.

November 8, 1989
Government Orders
In my opinion, the House committee should also deal with the more general issue of access to adequate and secure medical procedures. I don't think that Parliament could simply sherk that decision and leave it to the provinces, although they clearly have jurisdiction in health matters. Of course, we must respect the jurisdictions of the various levels of governments. I have noted how quickly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) and his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) have quoted the statements I made on this subject when I was minister of Justice.
They have discharged their duty. But there is more to this than just respecting individual jurisdictions.

I do not believe that respecting jurisdiction precludes co-operation and discussion between the two levels of government. I urge the minister and his colleague, the minister of health particularly, to take the lead, to use their influence rather than simply washing their hands of the whole question. As was pointed out, previous federal governments have taken action, for example, when they felt certain provinces were not respecting the Canada Health Act with regard to extra billing.
Family planning and reproduction counselling should be a priority of any government in combating the necessity of abortion. Everyone would agree that it is deplorable that we have a situation where any woman feels compelled to consider an abortion for economic reasons. Naturally we will study the proposals mentioned yesterday by the minister of health with regard to research into family planning, planned parenthood, adoption, education and other reproductive health issues.
The minister confirms that there are 150,000 young, single, low-income parents in need of assistance. If we want to take away economic reasons for abortion, we have to ensure that children brought into this world are properly cared for. I am entitled, I think, as is every member of Parliament, to ask this government, where is that child care program that it has been promising for five years? Where are the proposals to eliminate poverty? Where are the proposals to help women who chose to have children in difficult economic circumstances? Until this government gets really serious about these issues, I am afraid that many women with low incomes will
continue to be forced to consider abortion as an alternative.
I want to ask members of the House to go through this process of determining where we would be if we rejected this particular effort at accommodation introduced by the Minister of Justice. I listened very carefully to his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and listened to how she reconciled her own views with the current legislation. I look around at members of the House. I happen to know most of the members here and I know who holds one view and who holds the other. I said at the outset that despite the deep convictions we all share on a personal basis, as a result of our own personal religious convictions, moral upbringing and family influence, it is is not our personal views that are at issue, it is our views as legislators.
Let us take a look at this issue from both sides. Suppose I were strong pro-choice. Sensing the mood of the country, sensing the mood particularly of this House, I would feel that there would inevitably need to be some control reflecting the collective view of a majority of members and also reflecting the majority of Canadians, that there has to be some law or some control.
All right, from the pro-choice point of view, what would I say? I would say if there is going to be a law, maybe this is the best law we are going to get. After all, it does leave the decision to a woman and her doctor.
If, on the other hand, I were strong pro-life and I considered the same mood of the country and the same mood of this House, I would ask myself; what happens if this legislation is defeated? First of all, we are back to no law so we are back to abortion on demand as we have now. If those who hold a strong pro-life position want to defeat this law and are successful, we are back to abortion on demand. Or would I want the trimester solution as suggested by the Supreme Court, particularly with freedom of choice during that first trimester as suggested very strongly in the judgment of Madam Bertha Wilson? Maybe I come to the same conclusion. Maybe I say from my point of view that this is the best law I am going to get where the "life or the health of the mother is threatened". The earlier words used to be "in jeopardy". I do not believe that the further definition of "health" really changes matters from the earlier legislation. That is a matter for determination by a doctor. I do not think doctors have come any closer to defining the
November 8, 1989

word "health" now than they were able to do some years ago.
Where the life or the health of the mother is threatened, I cannot conceive, law or no law, of any judge or jury convicting a doctor or a woman where the doctor testified under oath that in his judgment the life or health of that woman was affected and that the abortion was necessary to meet the situation. Nor has there been a conviction in this country on those issues for many, many years, or in the United States, Australia or Great Britain.
I would say again, from a pro-life point of view, maybe this is the best law we can achieve in the circumstances.
You might say that is not a very theological position to take; that it is not a very philosophical position to take; it does not reflect too much of a moral impulse. If one has a view one way or the other, which each one of us does, then examine this piece of legislation from the process that I have described and let us come to the conclusion, I believe, that this may be the best result we are going to get. That is why I am prepared to see this bill go through second reading to committee.
I am prepared to listen to the arguments of the government as to how this bill meets the tests put forward by the Supreme Court under the Charter. I would hope that the minister, who will appear before that committee with his officials and whatever other outside counsel he deems to retain, will satisfy members of the House. I also hope the government is prepared to listen carefully to arguments put forward by those who may not share his confidence in the constitutionality of the bill, who may not share his confidence that the bill meets those tests. He may, I hope, want to look constructively at amendments that may be put in committee. Undoubtedly, there will be counsel from across the country who will state their views to the committee. I hope he will allow the widest range of good medical, judicial and legal advice to have a fair hearing before the committee.
None of us individually possesses the absolute wisdom to solve this problem. I dare say, without any fear of being in contempt of the House, that collectively we do not have the absolute wisdom to solve this problem. I
Government Orders
believe we will come nearer to that wisdom if throughout this debate we listen in a spirit of tolerance and respect to the views of all members who choose to speak.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim KarpofF (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in strong opposition to this bill. This bill recriminalizes abortion by making it a criminal offence for even a doctor to perform an abortion, except in certain circumstances where the life or the health of the woman is threatened. It must be understood that the doctor is the one who has to make that determination; the woman no longer has the right to make that determination. This bill narrows and limits the circumstances under which a woman may seek an abortion and under which a doctor may legally perform an abortion.
I think we should look at some of the background of the introduction of this legislation. It was precipitated by the January 1988 Supreme Court decision concerning Section 251 of the Criminal Code. In order to understand why the Supreme Court made its decision to disallow Section 251 we must look at some of the statements made at that time.
Justice Wilson stated: "The right to reproduce or not to reproduce, which is the issue in this case, is one such right and is properly perceived as an integral part of a modem woman's struggle to assert her dignity and her worth as a human being". This legislation does not assert her worth and dignity as a human being.
Justice Dickson stated that by interfering with bodily integrity, forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term, unless she meets criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus is an impingement on security of person.
This bill still carries a sanction of criminal law. The sanction is shifted from the woman to the doctor. If the doctor performed it illegally, then the woman is also liable as an accessory to a crime.
Since January 1988 there has been no criminal law restricting abortion. There has been no criminal law for nearly two years. I think this House must acknowledge that during this period, women, as they always have, have acted responsibly. They have demonstrated that there is

November 8, 1989
Government Orders
no need for criminal legislation and that is the situation that should remain.
This bill makes a decision to have an abortion not a decision of the woman but the decision of a doctor. The doctor's decision is not based on normal, medical questions. It is restricted to that of health and health even more widely defined is not the only reason a woman seeks an abortion in this country.
Furthermore, the doctor is restricted to doing it within accepted, as they say, generally accepted medical standards. In Canada, they may vary from region to region and from community to community. That means that there is not equal access. The doctor's decision is not going to be taken based on normal circumstances within the medical profession because it will be against the backdrop of criminal sanction and possible legal action and charges.
We should not underestimate the pressure that doctor will be under from anti-choice activists who will initiate third party prosecutions and even attempt to entrap a doctor into agreeing to perform an abortion for the sole purposes of being able to lay a criminal charge against that doctor.
It will put the doctors in a difficult spot, and they will start to restrict access to abortion. It will also force women into misleading the doctor about their emotional or psychological health in order to secure an abortion. This breaks down the relationship between the woman and her doctor and is very degrading to the woman. She must present herself as someone who is weak, fragile and whose psychological health is in jeopardy in order to obtain an abortion. It may be that the real motivating factors are socioeconomic, age or various other personal legitimate reasons.
It is important to understand that this decision to have an abortion will not be based on the woman's wishes, her desires, her own priorities and aspirations. The woman's own thoughts or feelings about her physical, mental or psychological health are now going to be irrelevant. It is a doctor's opinion that counts.
I think that the people who are supporting this bill had better really look at it. This bill clearly restricts abortions for circumstances of rape, incest, deformed foetuses, socioeconomic reasons, age, family dynamics, family planning or a host of other reasons for which women may
come to the proper conclusion that she wishes to terminate her pregnancy. This legislation is based on a whole concept about women and their competence to make valid judgments about which I cannot agree.
For those who oppose abortion under any circumstances based on their own moral convictions, although I do not agree with it I can understand it and respect it. But this position and this bill is not based on those sets of principles. This bill is based on the concept that we in this House can prejudge and make a better decision, more rational, more moral, more competent than the woman's decision on her own, and that we can do it without knowing and understanding all the circumstances that that woman is going to be in at that point in time.
One of my real pleasures in life has been watching a number of young women, including my own daughter, grow from infancy into young adults. They are now mature, competent, sensitive people with tremendous personal integrity. I have more confidence that they can and will make a far better decision about their reproductive choice, particularly when they know all the facts, than decisions now being predetermined for them by people like the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health and, yes, even the Prime Minister.
It was previously mentioned that there is respect for the sensitivity and judgment of women. But the minister who said that said "today is not the day that that is going to come about". Well, I will tell her today is the day that I have confidence in the sensitivity and judgment of women.
One would wonder if this type of bill based on this concept about women would be before this House if this House were made up of 255 women and 40 men instead of its present make-up of 255 men and 40 women.
The decision that a woman makes to have an abortion is an intensely personal issue. It is a difficult issue. It is not done frivolously and not done without due consideration, but is a decision often coming with agonizing cross-currents and feelings. The decision to have an abortion is a private issue that should not be subject to possible public and legal scrutiny, and certainly not subject to the possible criminal prosecution of the woman's doctor or herself.
November 8, 1989

I, for one, have a tremendous belief and faith in Canadian women. They will and always have made the best and right decision respecting their reproductive choice. This Parliament has no right to think that it can make a more competent and better decision.
This bill which recriminalizes abortion is an attempt to please anti-choice people and, like most appeasements, it simply creates more problems than it solves. It is not a law designed for women or to protect women's rights or dignity. It is not even a law that is designed to somehow protect or bow to the rights of the foetus. This law is simply a law designed by lawyers for lawyers. One can almost hear the lawyers saying: "Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to court we go," because that is what this bill is going to do. It is going to rebring the matter both on a constitutional basis and on a case-by-case basis back before the courts. It will expose women, their personal lives, then-struggles, their agonizing decisions to the public. It should not be allowed to happen.
I also want to talk a bit about who in fact is going to be affected by this legislation. My background is in social services and health care. I have worked with the poor. I have worked with teenage street kids, and the disadvantaged. I can remember when abortion was not legal. I have known poor women, disadvantaged women who have died seeking illegal abortions.
I want to tell you that any and all attempts to restrict abortions affect only poor women, women who are disadvantaged, young teenage women and women living in isolated areas. Even before abortion was legal in this country, wealthy women always could get abortions. They could go to another country. They knew medical practitioners who were willing to perform abortions, or to do D and Cs on the pretext that they were doing some type of a medical examination. Wealthy, powerful women have always been able to get abortions.
We in Canada had the classic case of sanctimonious hypocrisy when a former member of this House, the member from the Yukon, spoke partially against allowing women to have an abortion while at the same time he was paying for a woman to go to the United States to have an abortion. It has always been this way. The wealthy and the powerful will obtain abortions based on their wishes, their needs, their desires, their choices.
Government Orders
Canadian women can go across the border from Vancouver to Seattle, from Winnipeg to St. Paul, from Toronto to Buffalo. Those who have money and power are not going to be affected by this or any other abortion legislation. However, women who are poor, who cannot afford to travel, young women in particular who are both poor and powerless, and do not know the system and have no financial resources on knowledge, are the ones who are going to be restricted. Women in isolated and remote areas are the ones who will suffer.
This bill also falls short in that it does not do a number of the things that this government should be doing. This bill will not ensure women the right to access to full medical care, including abortions. We must remember that Prince Edward Island allows no abortion, Newfoundland allows almost none, and many areas in British Columbia also restrict abortions. The government should be ensuring through the Health Act that its program criteria, which includes such things as comprehensiveness, universality and accessibility are enforced.
The Health Act universality is defined as "the health care insurance plan of the province must entitle 100 per cent of all insured person of the province to insured health services, provided for by the plan". The government should enforce this immediately. Accessibility, in terms of health services, is defined on uniform terms of conditions on a basis that does not impede or preclude, either directly or indirectly, access to those services. The government could be initiating legislation and governmental actions that would assure women right across Canada that they have full access to all types of medical care, including care to terminate an unwanted pregnancy-
There are other things that the government should be doing which relate to family planning. I strenuously object to people who are opposed to such things as abortion. They are also the ones who are opposed to family planning. They are the ones who are responsible for a cut-back in family planning funds from 1984 to the present. In fact, going back further, this started under the previous Liberal government. In 1979 there was $447,000 being spent on family planning. In 1984 this was reduced to $200,000. By 1988 it was reduced to $139,000. The government thinks it should be congratulated for

November 8, 1989
Government Orders
increasing the funding this year by a measly $7,000, bringing it back up to $147,000.
Income-support programs that are meaningful must be put in place for all women in Canada. Yet we have an erosion of UIC. Income-assistance rates in this country are deplorable. Every study shows that they are significantly below the poverty line. Most mothers on welfare can only afford to feed their children between two and three weeks of a month. Minimum wages for women are only 66 per cent of those for men. In the banks we find that they are only 56 per cent of those for men.
This government has got to do something meaningful about the real wage rates for women. We have heard about day care. The fact that there is no universal, adequate, accessible, affordable day care scheme in this country puts women under a tremendous amount of pressure if they are the sole breadwinner, or even one of the main breadwinners within a family and they have to make a decision whether they wish to continue with their pregnancy. We have reduced the benefits for adoptive parents. The whole area of poverty is a major reason why women seek abortions. Yet in Canada we do nothing about the 1.2 million children who now live in poverty.
I want to close by saying a couple of things. There were two things that I had hoped would happen when this bill was brought forward. First, I hoped that it would ensure access to all medical services, including medical services to terminate an abortion. It has not done so. Second, it has restricted and recriminalized abortion.
I am convinced that the women of Canada are quite competent on their own, in consultation with their doctor-not a doctor who is under threat of criminal sanction-to make that decision. I think that this House should also express its confidence in Canadian women.
Mr Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the member's speech. He said at one point that under this legislation the decision would not be made by a woman, but by a doctor. I wonder if the member could tell me in what medical circumstances that would not be the case.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I could tell you all sorts of circumstances. In this particular one that we are facing, a
woman may decide that she wishes to have an abortion. She may feel that her psychological health is in jeopardy. That is totally irrelevant in this legislation. It is the doctor who is going to make that decision. But he is going to do it based on a restrictive definition of health and under threat of criminal sanction.
There are all sorts of things that are within the medical field that a person must decide if they wish to have it done. The doctor then makes the decision with respect to is it medically competent, is there any medical problem that is going to occur if that procedure is done? Then they will go ahead and do it. That is not the circumstances here. The doctor is not free to say: "Listen, I can medically perform this abortion, with no medical consequences for the woman, no threat to her health. In fact, it may even be better for her health", but he is not going to be allowed to. Maybe it is simply because the woman says: "I am 15 years old. I do not wish to be a 15 year old mother." He is not allowed to perform an abortion in that circumstance.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question as well. First of all I want to say that I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Surrey North. I, too, believe in the competence of women. I, too, believe in the integrity of women. I have felt for a long, long time that something as delicate and complex and personal as abortion, an issue as difficult as that, can be better decided, if I can put it that way, upon by the woman than by the state. I have always felt that women are people of integrity, that they do not take this issue lightly. There are those people who are on the so-called pro-choice side who are called pro-abortion. I have known and worked with many women who describe themselves as pro-choice, and I do not think they are pro-abortion. I do not think that any woman in this country, at least the women that I know, like to have an abortion. It is an enormously difficult decision to make.
There is this difficult area in the proposed legislation leaving it to the woman and the doctor. The hon. member for Surrey North believes that it is wrong to give a doctor a choice in the matter, that that is something that should be left up to the woman. My question really relates to whether he believes that this bill, if passed, is going to lead to a lot of dishonesty.
November 8, 1989

Given the criteria proposed in the bill, are women going to be going into doctors' offices because they want an abortion, whether it is on economic grounds or on any grounds, and telling fibs, little white lies so that they can beat the game, beat the criteria and have the abortion that they want? If that is the case, that is very disturbing. A woman, it seems to me, should be able to come to this issue honestly, forthrightly and ask her doctor whether she can have one without resorting to fibs. Could the hon. member answer that question.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: In the main part of my speech, I raised that as one of the real issues. A woman is going to have to present her circumstances in a particular frame of reference. She is going to have to be less than forthright with her doctor. A couple of things that I said about it was that it will destroy the doctor/patient relationship. It will also detract from the dignity of that woman. It forces her into being less than forthright. I know that most women when they are presented with that will find ways of presenting their situation in a manner that the doctor is not going to be able to make any decision.
When I was working in social work, administrators would say to me that this is what the policy says. I would say that you cannot give me a policy where I cannot take an individual case and force you to make an exception to that policy because I present the facts of the case.
My concern is that disadvantaged women are often the ones who are not sophisticated in law. They do not know what the legislation says. They are maybe not as articulate as some woman lawyer going in and asking. They are not as experienced in dealing with a medical person. They are not going to present their situation in a manner that is going to allow the doctor to form an opinion that an abortion is warranted.
This is particularly true of young women. What 15 year old will understand the subtleties of this legislation, that she has got to say not that this may be detrimental to her health, but threatening to her health? There is quite a difference between what is detrimental and what is threatening. Could she understand what is psychological health or mental health? She may consciously tiy to present that situation. Yes, there is going to be dishonesty. More important, it is going to deny women the right to have an abortion who should have that right. A15 year
Government Orders
old girl should not be forced to lie to her doctor in order to get an abortion.


Mrs. Dobbie:: I would just like to ask the member why he thinks a woman would not be able to consult a second doctor to get a second opinion. The legislation, in my opinion, does nothing to bar a woman from seeking a second opinion, and seeking the services of another doctor if the first doctor she consults does not agree that the abortion is necessary.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Let us take the case of the 15 year old girl. If she goes to six doctors in a row, she is still 15. If the doctors apply this legislation the way it is intended, she will not get an abortion. If I was a doctor and a woman went to one doctor and he said there is no medical ground, her health is not being threatened, I would be very leery to then perform an abortion because one doctor has already expressed an opinion under which I could be criminally charged. The doctor has already expressed that opinion by refusing to do the abortion on the basis that there are no medical grounds. That will happen. Any people who think that that is not going to happen are kidding themselves. Some people are thinking that the doctor and the woman are going to go quietly in the comer and wink at each other and then perform the abortion on demand. That is not what is going to happen.


Dawn Black: I would like to thank my colleague for Surrey North for his comments today. I know that he worked a long time in the social services field in British Columbia and had experiences with women in British Columbia before there was any access to abortion that were very painful for him to witness as a social worker. I know that his comments came from his experience in that area. I know that his comments were from his heart and were, in some cases, very painful for him to bring forward in this place today.
I want to ask him to comment specifically, on young girls, children who are having children. We know from statistics that Stats Canada provides for us that there are almost 50,000 children in care in Canada. The majority of these kids have come from poor families, families that in many cases are below the poverty line.
I wonder if my colleague could address some of the reasons that this criminal legislation is particularly wrong

Government Orders
when this government has taken no effective action to address the issues of poverty in this country, and particularly the heart-breaking issue of child poverty.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: There are many issues that are related to this. I just want to use the example of the young mother with two children who is desperately struggling to keep herself and those two children going, who is having difficulty feeding them, and then all of a sudden is faced with an unwanted pregnancy.
This legislation does not allow her, based on family planning reasons, on socio-economic reasons, or for personal reasons that are entirely different to have an abortion. If she is forced then to have a third child, what I have seen over and over again is that six months later we have all three kids in care. The total family has broken down.
What we should be doing is allowing her to make that decision, More important, we should be providing her with enough income so she can support those two children, and enough income so that if she wishes to she may have that third child and be able to support that child in a standard of living that is suitable for Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin).


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of taking part in the debate on abortion during the previous Parliament, a little over two years ago, and today I notice a difference in the views expressed by Hon. Members in this House. There is a difference between the positions taken by Members who have just been re-elected and who took part in the previous debate, and those newly elected Members, like the Hon. Member for Surrey North (Mr. Karpoff), because when we had this important debate in 1986, we had to vote on seven different resolutions. We expressed our own personal convictions with respect to each of these resolutions, without seeking a compromise. For us, it was a matter of conscience, principle, upbringing and education, and we voted accordingly. We were never able to get a majority in this House. Never, which is not surprising because there is more to this debate than pro-life and pro-choice. There are any number of variations between these two extremes, and I will get
back to this later on. However, and if we all vote according to our own concerns, we will never reach a consensus and we will never produce a piece of legislation.
I want to congratulate the Prime Minister who, despite the problems of reaching a consensus in this House, has again told his caucus that Progressive Conservative Members may consider this a free vote. And I hope that the leaders of the opposition parties-it was a pleasure to listen to the pragmatic speech given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Ihmer)-and I hope that the New Democratic Party will also ask its Members to vote according to their conscience, to be pragmatic and to be willing to seek a compromise. That is the only way we will succeed.
So it is a free vote, Mr. Speaker. But am I really completely free? Am I really free to vote any way I like? No, I am not. I have my conscience, I have my upbringing and education, and I have the religious values I was taught. I have my constituents in Megantic-Compton- Stanstead who are very interested in this matter, who write letters and send petitions and come to my riding office, who call me up and let me know what they think, one way or another. There are also the people of Quebec and Canada who are concerned about this matter. But I also know that Canadians want their elected representatives to come up with a solution and produce legislation. In view of the legal vacuum that currently exists, they want us here in the House to reach an agreement and produce legislation that, although it will obviously not reflect every Canadian's personal position, will reach a compromise.
Mr. Speaker, I am a lawyer by profession, and I have worked in criminal law and as a defence lawyer. Unlike what the Hon. Member said, Mr. Speaker, I always felt this was not a law for lawyers. I always thought that criminalizing abortion would not deal with the problems underlying the whole situation around abortion. Economic factors, professional factors, women's careers, for instance, and various family constraints are all reasons why women may at some time consider interrupting their pregnancy. Making abortion a crime will not set a greater value on life. It will not deal with the various things that must be done to convince women to continue their pregnancy, to have children and give the most precious gift there is, the gift of life.
November 8, 1989

During the last debate, I voted against the motions that were tabled because I did not want to criminalize abortion. I said that was no way to deal with the situation. I said we had to provide financial help to women who want to have a child but can't afford to because they do not have the financial resources. We all know women in our towns and villages who would like to have a larger family but just can't afford it. We need measures to promote adoption, measures to provide assistance at all levels, and we need a genuine family policy.
Instead of talking about abortion, I would have much preferred to discuss ways of providing for a genuine family policy in this country that would make it possible to deal with all these problems. I think Canadians would much rather hear us talk about that than about abortion or the chances of it being criminalized.
We will not solve the problem by forcing a woman to bring her pregnancy to term. Certainly not. Making abortion a crime will not solve the problem. It is by taking steps to support pregnant women. It is in this sense that I consider myself now and always definitely Pro-Life. I want to encourage life by all possible means.
As a lawyer, I can tell you that the bill will criminalize a situation which, from the practical point of view, will never occur, except under extreme circumstances which any way would deserve a penalty, either under the Criminal Code or otherwise.
In a most interesting article, well informed La Presse Editor Alain Dubuc stated, and I quote: "The Bill defines abortion as a crime; yet, its application is so loose that it clearly supports abortion on demand." He added: "This clearly indicates a greater concern for ideas than for the concrete problems of women." Further: "In short, let us strike a balance between humanism and militantism". And finally: "All this means that abortion may be a crime, but no abortion performed by a physician in Canada will be a criminal act!" And I trust that is what is going to happen.
Let us have a look at the Bill which is so clear that most Canadian men and women will understand it easily:
Government Orders
Every person who induces an abortion on a female person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years-
First of all, I wish to emphasize the fact that under the present abortion legislation, that person would be liable to imprisonment for life. This Bill adopts the least severe penalty under the Criminal Code, namely two years. There are penalties of five, ten and twenty years. There are different categories. In that respect, the Bill criminalizes abortion. I do not agree that it should become a crime, but it is the least serious criminal act referred to in Canada's Criminal Code.
Every person who induces an abortion on a female person-
This, of course, excludes the woman herself. Under the old statute a woman could be sent to jail for life. In this instance, for all practical purposes the woman is excluded. The physician might be put behind bars to serve a relatively short sentence. That is a very big advantage.
Should I be offended because this medical act must be approved by a physician? No, not at all. Indeed I fail to see how an abortion could be performed by someone other than a physician. Even if we did not legislate the physician would still have to give his opinion. I do not see how a physician could be forced to induce an abortion if he happens to be against that medical act. We saw that in the Daigle-Tremblay case last summer. A number of Quebec physicians expressed the view that after so many weeks they would not have performed that abortion, even though the legislation had been struck down at the time. There was no law. If no physician is prepared to do it, we are back to square one. There has to be a physician to induce an abortion. Whether or not the bill says the advice of a physician is required, in practical terms it is exactly the same thing.
Here is how health is defined:
Every person who induces an abortion on a female person - unless the abortion is induced by or under the direction of a medical practicioner who is of the opinion that, if the abortion were not induced, the health or life of the female person would be likely to be threatened.
Then we have the definition of health. That is what we learned from the Supreme Court in the Morgentaler case. Health means "physical, mental and psychological health". The woman's psychological health. Let me go back to the measures I mentioned earlier.

Government Orders
Today, the psychological health of many pregnant women in Canada is affected, because those economic measures do not exist, because there is no genuine family policy, because adoption proceedings have not been made any easier, and because a host of other measures that many Canadian women would have liked to see have not materialized. This may be one of the reasons why the psychological health of certain women who want an abortion is affected.
If we as parliamentarians got to work and considered a number of measures to promote life, to promote births and pregnancies, maybe we would not need this legislation which criminalizes abortion.
In Coaticook, where I come from, Mayor Andre Langevin and his town council said: We are going to do what we can. So the mayor offers $1,000 for every child bom in this town. This decision was very well received by the community, It created a new interest. This modest initiative by a small Canadian town may not change much for the time being, but it may have a snowball effect. I saw this as a signal to the rest of Canada that we must sit down and give some serious thought to promoting life and children in this country.
This legislation is absolutely necessary. I can do without a replay of the circus we saw last summer, and I am referring to Daigle-Tremblay and the Dodd case in Toronto.
I would like to quote from an excellent article by Lysiane Gagnon in the newspaper La Presse, which pretty well reflects my concerns and my position on this legislation.
She says, and I quote:
There is an ideological perspective and a pragmatic perspective.
However, ideology doesn't stand a chance when we take a pragmatic look at the Bill. The proposed legislation practically allows abortion on demand, and ideological arguments do not hold up against an analysis of the realities.
The concept of psychological health is the key element that would allow abortion for socio-economic reasons, in cases of rape or incest, and in fact for any other reason a woman might have for not wanting to be pregnant, because obviously, a woman who does not want a child will be under mental stress if she is forced to have one.
Those Canadians who are ready to mount the barricades and fight recriminalization of abortion should remember that the most violent reactions occurred at a time when abortion was in a legal vacuum,
after the Supreme Court decision which rendered the previous legislation null and void. It was last summer, when abortion was not considered a crime by the legislator, that we had that infamous legal circus. Under this legislation, the Daigle-Tremblay case would never have happened.
Mr. Speaker, this legilsation is absolutely necessary. Am I pro-life, am I pro-choice? In medio stat virtus. Virtue is equidistant from two extremes, which applies to many situations and also to this one.
Some are opposed to abortion in all cases without exception. Some would allow it in case of rape or incest. Some would allow it for a 13- or 14-year-old girl. Some would allow it in the first 10, 12, 14, 16 or 20 weeks of pregnancy. Recently, I even heard Dr. Augustin Roy say that we should set the limit at 22 weeks.
Some say the woman should see one doctor while others would like a second opinion or a therapeutic committee.
Mr. Speaker, some are in favor of abortion in all cases without exception. The possibilities are endless. There is such a wide range of situations that, if you tried to list them all, you would still be at it tomorrow morning.
We should not crystalize the debate thus allowing the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups to comer us into one or the other of those two extreme situations. There are many other things besides that. Indeed perhaps the two groups Pro-Life and Pro-Choice who are lobbying extensively prevent us from realizing what measures we should take to solve the problem in the first place. On an issue like this there are as many opinions as there are heads!
Mr. Speaker, some people call this a hypocritical legislation, but I for one think it is a fair compromise. It is a compromise which is not made against my conscience, which is not made against the basic principles I live by and which were given to me by my family, by those who educated me, and by all those with whom I came in contact during my life.
They say it could be improved. Of course it could. The same thing is being said about Meech Lake these days. However in some cases the word is leave well enough alone, and seek a consensus. That is not easy, considering there are 295 Members from every region of the country, each with his or her own views.
November 8, 1989

Setting pure ideology aside, one must be practical. So, Mr. Speaker, although I entertain reservations about some provisions, even if I have reservations about criminalizing, however lenient it may be, there is no doubt in my mind that as Member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead I must support and vote in favour of this bill. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the legislative committee will have to give serious consideration to this measure and improve it if possible. But basically I agree with the principles and the way this bill has been drafted.


Dawn Black: I thank the member opposite on the government side for his comments today. He showed great sensitivity to women and to how they feel about this particular issue. Most women in Canada view this issue of abortion and right to reproductive choice and freedom as the key indicator of women's emancipation, women's freedom in Canada.
More than 50 per cent of our population are women and they think of this issue as one where you cannot be a little bit pregnant, you also cannot be a little bit held under the Criminal Code. You are a full and equal citizen in this country, a citizen who is able to make her own decision under her own priorities and concerns, and not under the criteria established by a criminal law.
The member indicated that this was the best kind of a compromise that we could achieve in Canada around the issue of abortion. He also indicated that this bill would prevent the horror that we witnessed this summer with the Daigle case where we saw the very private details of a woman's life displayed across the media of this country. We saw her pain and her suffering as she struggled with this issue herself. We saw the courts in Quebec obstructing her and in some ways harassing her as she went through a terrible time.
I wonder how the member feels this criminal legislation will prevent that kind of spectacle again. It is my understanding' that the injunctions that were held over Miss Daigle were done under civil law. This is criminal law that we are discussing here in the Chamber today. My understanding is that criminal law will not prevent civil injunction. In fact, one of my big concerns with this legislation is that we are handing another legal tool to the small majority of people in the Canadian population
Government Orders
who would use any means and we have seen what they have done over many months to prevent a woman from exercising her own choice on her own reproductive health and the choice that she makes about becoming a mother. I would ask the member how he sees this criminal legislation preventing civil injunctions. How does he see this criminal legislation improving the situation for women in Canada? I simply do not believe that it does. I believe that it will diminish access and make the situation worse for women in Canada.


François Gérin: Last summer, when the Supreme Court considered the court injunction in the Chantal Daigle case, it took not more than 30 minutes or three-quarters of an hour, I believe, to hand down its decision. One cannot request a court injunction on those grounds. That was established at a time when there was no legislation on abortion. So I imagine that answers your question, if in addition to the Supreme Court decision, whose reasons have yet to be published, we have this legislation as well. I think this is particularly important, because I believe that NDP Members, generally speaking, are in favour of having no legislation at all. They would prefer to leave it up to the woman, but now they will have to vote-I hope it will be a free vote for them as well-and I hope that women Members in the NDP caucus will demand a free vote and that when they do vote, they will consider this short quote, my last one by the same Lysiane Gagnon. I think she will appreciate this, and I hope she will return the favour in her next article:
"Instead of arguing about the semantics of the issue, feminists groups should set up effective lobbies to meet Members of Parliament and try and increase support for this Bill which, considering the realities, is the most progressive piece of legislation we could have. In any case, the Pro-Life lobbies won't waste any time".


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I find the member's comments very interesting. I think that he has thought them through a great deal. I certainly appreciate his sensitivity and his wish to make it as free and easy for a woman to terminate a pregnancy. I am quite intrigued that, as a lawyer, his interpretation of the bill is that if a woman sought an abortion, did not qualify for it on the grounds of a threat to medical health and was turned down, that would be psychologically hard on her and, therefore, her

November 8, 1989
Government Orders
psychological health would be under threat and now she would be entitled to it.
Basically, what the member is saying is that every woman under this legislation is entitled to abortion. First, I would like the member to tell me if the concept that is used is that she is denied, she is now psychologically upset about it, and therefore now she is entitled- the chicken and egg situation-under what circumstances does he see a woman would not be able to get an abortion? Are there any? If there aren't any, why is the bill not simply amended by using the words that state that "unless the abortion is induced or performed by or under the direction of a medical practitioner"-period, and striking out the rest of it altogether?
If we are saying that that is what the intent is, and some people over there seem to be kidding themselves that that is what the intent is and what the end result is going to be, then why do we not just cut the bill off and strike out all the words about health and life and threats and just say as long as it is performed under the supervision of a medical practitioner, period?


François Gérin: Thank you for your question. However, I already answered most of the question at the beginning of my speech when I said that in 1986, I voted on seven different motions. Since I found none were acceptable, I voted against all seven.
Since 1986,1 have come to the conclusion that we must reach a compromise that takes into account the basic principles of my philosophy, and those basic principles are reflected in this Bill. Fine, in your case, you may wish to see a limit of 17 weeks and 3 days, but you may get only 6 or 7 Members to vote in favour of your proposal, and you will never get that kind of legislation through the House. And by the end of the debate, we still wouldn't have any legislation, while the vast majority of Canadians not only want legislation, they want their Members to produce specific provisions in the form of a bill. So there is a lot of truth in what you say, but you want a bill that is a perfect reflection of your ideas and concerns. However, we must go beyond this desire for perfection which will never get a consensus in this House and produce something that will be acceptable to you just the same and which will help give Canadians what
they want most, which is legislation that reflects all the basic principles you support.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise to speak on Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion.
My leader, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, has already indicated that there will be a free vote within the Liberal party because this is a non-partisan issue.
I must state at the outset that this bill is a grave disappointment and I cannot support it as it is. However, like my leader, I will support it going to a legislative committee so that amendments may be heard from all disciplines, so that we may seek clarification and improvements, so that we may examine the need to delineate the services that the women of our country need.
This issue, indeed, is most crucial and complex. It has been intensely debated for almost two years now and has even led to civil strife.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, yesterday, in debating this issue indicated: "Sensationalizing individual lives cannot possibly provide the thoughtfulness, wisdom and judgment necessary to develop a bill which respects the rights of all Canadians, especially when those rights come into conflict with one another". I agree.
However, I must state that this government has delayed presenting legislation on abortion to this House for an unacceptably long period of time. The bill that we now have, as is, has not clarified anything. At best, it has only clarified issues vaguely. It does not protect Canadians in the womb of their mothers nor the mothers themselves.
Let us remind ourselves that once we members of Parliament were in the womb of our mothers. Had they aborted us we would not be here to be able to debate this fundamental issue.
This government states that Bill C-43 strikes a balance between the right of women to personal freedom and privacy and the state's interest in protecting the right of the unborn to life, that this bill is a balanced approach. This is not true. How can it be a balance when it compromises both rights?
November 8, 1989

This bill does nothing to protect the life of the unborn. It does not promote the value and dignity of human life, nor does it address the rightful concerns of women.
The bill states that abortion is prohibited unless a woman's health is in danger, but health is defined in such a broad and unverifiable way that this bill will basically allow abortion on demand. The bill sets no limits on the threat to health necessary to warrant abortion. A doctor will be able to perform a legal abortion for a woman once he forms the opinion that her life or her physical, mental, or psychological health would likely be threatened if the abortion were not performed. The proposed laws will not require the doctor to consult other doctors or to cariy out the procedure in licensed premises, clinic, or hospital.
As a medical doctor iryself by professional background, I must point out hat this puts the medical profession in an inappropriate situation. Basically the medical profession will be delegated a task of writing parts of Canada's criminal law. It is not the duty of a physician in practice to be a legislator. The duty of a physician is not to solve the social and economic problems of society through performing abortions, but to protect the life of the unborn, a foetus' right to life.
It might seem that a pregnant woman has the right to abort since legal proscription of abortion seems to interfere with personal liberty. But I must submit that unrestricted personal freedom is not always possible.
It is acknowledged that the freedom of one person is limited by the personal freedom of other people. That is why we have in our Canadian Constitution a provision to that effect.
All seven Supreme Court judges stated in last year's ruling on this issue that the state has a valid interest in the protection of the foetus. The test is whether in exercising that interest Parliament imposes reasonable, demonstrably justified limits on a woman's constitutional right to security of the person, and whether those limits accord with fundamental principles of justice. The ruling of the Supreme Court in fact tells us that we in Parliament have a solemn duty to pass legislation on this issue.
Human dignity includes the right to the free development of one's personality which allows each individual to act on his or her personal moral convictions. But,
Government Orders
conversely, human life and dignity have to be respected by anyone making use of his or her own right to act freely.
Thus the freedom to have an abortion must be limited to the extent that such an action encroaches on the rights of others, on the right of the unborn in the womb of his or her mother. Before discussing this further, I must point out that there is a possible encroachment on the rights of the person who makes use of her right to privacy by procuring an abortion.
Abortion may endanger the life and the health of the pregnant woman. Complications which can arise from abortion include perforation of the uterus and other physical damage. There is also a high incidence of post-abortion mental health problems, the symptoms of which include feelings of guilt, depression, drug dependencies, and even suicide attempts. Thus from the point of view of the mother's physical and mental health, in almost all situations it is to the woman's advantage to carry a pregnancy to term rather than to abort it.
Hence to preserve a woman's life or health, the woman's personal liberty to decide the fate of the unborn life may be restricted. Obviously it is necessary to prohibit destruction of unborn life, not only to protect the woman, not only to protect the mother, but also to save the unborn child himself or herself.
If unborn life were considered less worthy of protection than bom life, this could lead to a decrease in the protection of born life itself. Just as a differentiation between born and unborn life is made, so a differentiation between life worthy of a right to live and life without such a right could be made.
Such differentiation has been made in the past. And we are all aware of the horrible results. Despite this, there are still people in certain parts of the world who consider abortion to be an accepted means of birth control. This, I submit, is reprehensible. This cannot be condoned and it is the responsibility of the state to prevent this.
Medical science has established that a foetus has its own body organs, has its own genetic code and is capable of full life after birth if allowed to fully develop in the mother's womb. When others argue that the stage of viability of the foetus be the criterion for abortion, then I submit that viability of the foetus is threatened, not

November 8, 1989
Government Orders
because of the fault of the foetus, but because of the intervention of men and women who induce abortion.
How then can the foetus defend himself or herself against such an argument? We who can speak, who can feel, who have been given life, must now speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. From the moment of conception an individual will increase in size, will increase in the degree of development, but he or she remains essentially the same individual from conception until death.
Regardless of personal inconvenience or personal preference, a physician, including myself because of my medical background, or even a prospective mother should not be able to take the life of the unborn child at will. If there is genuine threat to the life of the pregnant mother, all medical attempts must be made to save the lives, not of one, but to save the lives of both. Fortunately, from the medical point of view, carrying a pregnancy to term usually poses no such threat to the pregnant woman. Normally there is no competition for life between a mother and her unborn child. What is good for the health of the mother is good for the foetus and carrying a baby to term is usually in the best interests of not only the woman herself, of her family, but also of society as a whole.
Already there exist laws which indirectly protect the foetus. In penal law, it is a criminal offence for a third person to attack a foetus against the will of the pregnant woman. Also, harsher penalties are levelled against the murderer of a pregnant woman. Protection of the foetus through the protection of a pregnant woman is reflected in labour law. Yes, there exists legal protection of the foetus in penal, administrative, labour and civil laws. As members of Parliament it is our duty to pass appropriate legislation to protect the unborn child.
Some people will suggest that even if aborting a foetus is not a physical or mental health imperative, it should nonetheless be allowed as an economic imperative. I disagree most strongly but politely with the idea that we can ever put an economic price tag on human life. We should support, instead, improved programs for pregnant women and improved programs for new born babies and older children. We should facilitate adoptions and we must encourage men to be more responsible for birth control and, in the event of pregnancy, more responsible in terms of child support. If a child is unwanted by the
mother this does not mean that the child is unwanted. A child will be wanted by the father or by the grandparents or by thousands of childless couples trying to adopt.
The mother has the opportunity of giving a lifetime of happiness to individuals unable to have their own children, who will love and cherish the adopted child as if he or she were their own.
Some will say that induced, non-therapeutic abortions will take place even if they are only allowed on therapeutic grounds, and that they will then take place in unsanitary and unsafe conditions at exorbitant prices.
As a medical doctor by background, I am deeply concerned indeed. I believe if we are interested in saving the lives of the unborn we should not be making it cheaper and safer to terminate their lives.
Pregnancy is not a disease. It is a natural and wonderful gift of life. We must use all methods to reduce the number of abortions, not only legal methods. These methods include better education and better support services such as day care, counselling services and adequate housing for the poor. We must identify the bases of why we ask for abortion. When we have identified the causes, then we as a government, as a society, must provide the necessary societal solutions. The government must exercise federal leadership to the extent that when a therapeutic procedure of any kind is indicated, those medical services must be available to all Canadians in every comer of this country. But on an issue of fundamental values, first and foremost the right to life, we must not hesitate to legislate in the interests of society.
Just because people will drink and drive regardless of legislation does not mean that we should not legislate. Just because some induced non-therapeutic abortions will take place regardless of legislation to the contrary does not mean that we should not legislate. That a law will be broken, is no argument against enacting such a law.
Some people will suggest that a child should not be bom into poverty or a bad family, that such a life is not worth living. The adoption choice aside, is it not presumptuous for us to judge what kind of life is worth living and what kind is not? The issue of abortion involves two lives, not just one, and both lives must be protected whenever possible. Medical science has proven that life is a continuum from conception till death, and to
November 8, 1989

arbitrarily extinguish life at any point along this continuum shows a contempt for human life itself.
Yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated that our societal values change with time. I agree that some societal attitudes may change with time. I submit and add that life and its protection are eternal values that do not change and ought not to change with time. In an enlightened society such as ours, it should be legally acknowledged that life cannot be surrendered, that a bad law can be amended. True, a bad law is worse than no law, but it is no excuse for not enacting a good law.
Let us send this bill to committee for further study, to test the constitutionality and other aspects that we would like to raise. We cannot allow this bill as is. It will lead to a legal conundrum. It will be an invitation to abuse and a prescription for disrespect for the rule of law.
It is not sufficient to focus only on the political and legal ramifications of abortion policies.
Canada should make childbirth a more attractive alternative. Any society that prohibits abortion and does not care for the needs and distress of the mother, child and family after birth, is hypocritical. By legislating to protect unborn human life, the dignity of all Canadians and indeed the dignity of all human beings will be affirmed.
Those who are protected at the most vulnerable moment of their lives will thank us for the courageous and principled stand we take, and our country will have benefited from our faith in the inherent worth and dignity of all human life. Canada must continue to care for people, for life, when it begins. I resolutely believe that my constituents in Winnipeg North, in fact all Canadians, believe in the sanctity of life. I am confident they will be with me when I exercise my solemn duty to vote to reflect the collective conscience of Canadians.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to tell the member how much I appreciated his remarks. I think that they were sensitive and well thought out, and I certainly agree with the body of them.
Government Orders
A few minutes ago when the member for Surrey North was speaking, he mentioned that the problem with this legislation was that the decision would not be made by a woman but by a doctor. I asked him whether there were any other medical cases where the patient decided what the treatment should be rather than the doctor. He answered: "Yes, lots of them".
Now since the member for Winnipeg North is a medical doctor, I would like to ask him if he agrees that there are many cases where the patient decides rather than the doctor what the treatment should be.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I thought following my election to Parliament that I would not be giving any more medical opinion. Of course, I alluded to that in my speech. In response to the hon. member, the answer is no. The medical doctor, by the medical act, makes the decision whether or not to treat. If he or she does this in great error, he or she, as a physician, is subject to the medical malpractice suit.
My concern, in fact, about this bill is that because there are no limits it is possible that a physician, because of his philosophical conviction, may do other than what medical practice usually allows a physician to do. I am still a member of the medical profession, although I am on leave of absence from the university. I find it difficult that the Canadian Medical Association has taken a position by a vote during a convention that performing abortion ought to be left to the decision of the woman and the doctor, as though that is the ultimate criterion for care of the unborn child, for care of the pregnant woman.
It is established medical practice that the criteria for treatment of almost all conditions, with very few exceptions, are based on scientific evidence. It is never based on a popular vote. It is because of that that I am concerned that the absence of strict limits of how even my own medical colleague would interpret the provision law. The absence of that certainty would not let me support this bill as is, and I would like clarification during debate at the committee level.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I too listened carefully to the member's comments today, and I know that he speaks with true conviction. I respect his conviction and I certainly respect his right to hold the views that he holds. I have some empathy with his position.
The member is a medical doctor and he spoke about women who are pregnant, under a variety of situations,

November 8, 1989
Government Orders
seeing their doctor. He talked, in particular, about a woman who may be pregnant and may be suicidal. He seemed to indicate that that was not what he would consider as grounds for an abortion.
He also mentioned other countries and what the laws were there. I would just mention that in Ireland, where abortion is totally illegal and totally outlawed, the abortion rate in fact is higher than the abortion rate in Canada.
But I would ask him as a parliamentarian and as a medical doctor, under this law that we are debating here today, if a pregnant woman was to see him requesting an abortion under what circumstances would he approve that request?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am really being challenged to exercise my medical judgment and I will do that.
It is given that when a physician approaches a patient and then wants to prescribe a treatment, the ultimate challenge to that physician is to save the life of that patient from an illness. In so doing, the physician has to examine alternatives of therapy, including counselling for example, including other modes of therapy that are not of a surgical nature. When a physician makes only one treatment approach, if we can even call it that, of aborting 100 women that come to my clinic so that when they leave they have all had abortions, well, I submit that that physician will be challenged through peer review by our colleagues, because the real treatment likely is not being practised.
Before I answer directly the specific question posed, let me clarify. For example, let us say the psychological health of the woman is in danger. What do we mean by that? Is it because one has a discomfort and, therefore, one would have an abortion? Well, if a physician does that, then he or she is not doing a proper job, because the therapy for depression is not abortion. The therapy likely will be counselling and other modes of therapy that do not have to terminate the life of that unborn. That is why only when the life of the mother is seriously threatened, gravely threatened, in the history of medical practice abortion is an accepted alternative, because in trying to save the lives of both, one has to give way, but not only for simple convenience.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that many colleagues will join me in congratulating the member for
his speech. It is not often in this chamber, perhaps not often enough, that we can have this kind of debate, all speak from the heart, agreeing or disagreeing with each other regardless of party line.
I want to congratulate the member for the dimension he is bringing to the debate as a medical doctor. I know he did not think he was going to practise medicine upon his arrival on Parliament Hill, but I am going to ask him another question in regard to that. I hope the member puts up with that.
Some members had an opportunity of hearing Professor Peter Day from the University of British Columbia, who came to speak to a number of MPs on the value of abortion as a medical treatment, if you wish. That is really a follow up to the answer that my colleague has just given.
It was suggested to those members of Parliament who attended that very excellent talk a couple of months ago that in fact there was no record anywhere in the medical profession which proved that abortion was in fact a valuable medical treatment.
Dr. Day even went so far as to add that it was rather unusual, and perhaps unique to abortion, that prior to using that medical treatment-I will call it that loosely for the purposes of this discussion-no experimentation had been done, as we do, for instance, when we experiment with a new kind of drug or a new kind of treatment. We will study that on either other life forms first or we will select a few individuals and study what the benefit is of a treatment, then evaluate that and decide whether we want to apply that treatment to society as a whole.
I want to ask my colleague, in his professional opinion, if he knows of any such studies that actually demonstrate that there is such a benefit from abortion as a medical treatment. Again, I am using that term. It has come to my attention that, in fact, there was no proof that abortion was ever a good medical treatment. I want him to comment on that.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I thought my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Henri-West-mount, who is a lawyer would give me legal advice before I continue to give medical opinion in Parliament. But because we have parliamentary immunity, I can do so. I must say, however, in all seriousness that I still maintain my medical licence.
November 8, 1989

In response to the question, there has not been any study, nor could a study ever be done in a controlled scientific fashion to test the hypothesis whether abortion will be a valuable therapeutic procedure for psychological problem that may be related to pregnancy. But there are well established scientific and medical principles. The first principle is do no harm. Now, the Hippocratic principle is a very valuable one. What it tells us is that if we cannot prove that a treatment procedure is valuable, we have to accept that it ought not to do harm. Evidence has shown that in fact, abortion has induced psychological trauma in women. There is no proof that abortion is a valuable therapy for psychological problems.
In response to the question, even on medical grounds, we cannot allow abortion as a therapeutic procedure on just the request of a woman for psychological, emotional or economic difficulties, with all respect for the concerns of the women who truly may be in distress. But I would like to see alternative forms of therapy like counselling be provided by government and an assurance that societal help will be offered.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 o'clock p.m., pursuant to an order adopted on Tuesday, November 7, 1989, the House can now move to resume and complete third reading consideration of Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Excise lax Act and the Excise Act.


EXCISE TAX ACT AND EXCISE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-20, an act to amend the Excise Thx Act and Excise Act, be read the third time and passed.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I wish to do so only briefly. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the Liberal caucus and I, as well as my colleague for Ottawa South, will be speaking more extensively later on this bill. We have rejected this bill and do not feel that it is in the best interest of Canadians. The member for Ottawa
Government Orders
South will describe in a far more eloquent way than I can how wrong this bill is for our country.
We are discussing this bill at the same time as the Prime Minister brings us his so-called tax reform. It is very important to discuss these two issues at the same time because the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance keep telling us that some of the taxes we have right now are unfair, that they are wrong. We have at present a 13.5 per cent federal excise tax. That 13.5 per cent is applied right now by the government but under existing legislation, that rate is only 12 per cent. Of course, through the motion of Ways and Means and so on, that 12 per cent has been increased to 13.5 per cent. This bill today would formally place that into effect.
What is interesting, and I am sure you will be interested in this, Mr. Speaker, is that this federal excise tax has been qualified by the Minister of Finance as being a silent killer of jobs. It was a silent killer of jobs when it was 12 per cent, so what does the government propose to do with the 12 per cent silent killer of jobs? Increase it to 13.5 per cent.


David Walker: Amazing.


Don Boudria: Amazing indeed. Perhaps the Minister of Finance can explain this to us later. I know he is paying very close attention to my speech, I can tell from looking across the way. Later he will want to react to this and tell us how increasing a silent killer of jobs from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent is going to make things any better. I challenge the minister to rise right now in his place. I know he will not do it. I know the Minister of Finance will not answer these questions that I am asking, otherwise he could rise immediately in his seat and discuss this with us.


Some Hon. Members:: He is afraid.


Don Boudria: That's it, my colleagues say he is afraid and that is why he is not reacting. I know that that is the case.
To make matters worse, this silent killer of jobs which has increased now to 13.5 per cent was only 9 per cent when the Conservatives took office. The Conservatives are proposing was the appropriate rate, why did they not leave it there to start with? Why did they bring it up to 12 per cent, and by the way it took three tries to bring it there. They brought the tax from 9 per cent to 10 per cent and so on and then to 12 per cent, and today to 13.5 per cent. This is the fourth time since the Conservatives have been in power that they have increased the federal

Government Orders
excise tax, making it 13.5 per cent. It was 9 per cent in the beginning, as I said awhile ago.
Being the objective person that you are, Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt be very upset, as I am, to see that the government is doing this. The government, for instance, is telling us that the proposed tax of 9 per cent will be much fairer. Right, the tax will be much fairer. We have a 13.5 per cent tax now, which is unfair according to the minister, but that 13.5 per cent unfair tax is only really 7 per cent at the retail level. We are going to take taxation at 7 per cent at the retail level and increase it to 9 per cent with the proposed goods and services tax and that is supposed to make it better. Well I have some difficulty understanding how any of this will be better.
Bill C-20, that we are discussing today also proposes to entrench the fact that we now have an 11 per cent tax on telecommunications services and programs.
I represent a rural constituency and I am sure you are familiar with my riding as you drive through it coming from your own constituency to Ottawa. I am sure that you have noted, Mr. Speaker, that the riding that I represent is rural. In this rural riding, a tax on telecommunications services is a tax on an essential service.
The government has said that there is no problem because distance rates. I ask you, if you live in a rural area the basic telephone rate is about $6 a month; it is the long distance rates that are expensive and the people have to phone long distance to their doctors, the hospitals, the ambulances and everything else. I can tell that you agree with me about how unfortunate and how unfair the taxes are, Madam Speaker.
The tax on alcoholic beverages is increased from 18 per cent to 19 per cent. That is enough to drive someone to drink, I tell you. Those sin taxes are included in this bill and I suppose it is fashionable to accept that there is always a certain measure of increase in those so-called sin taxes in every budget, but we should remember that just as it is easier to tax those sin items, cigarettes and alcohol and so forth, we should remember that the taxing of any item has an inflationary impact, no matter how you cut it.
There are a number of other items which I feel are particularly objectionable in this bill and I want to urge all my colleagues on both sides of the House to vote
against this bill. One of these measures which is particularly objectionable is the increase from 8 per cent to 9 per cent on the tax on construction materials.
There is an acute housing shortage in this country and we have been bringing this to the attention of the minister responsible for housing-and I use the word "responsible" loosely-questioning about what measures the government can undertake to make housing more affordable, particularly in large downtown areas. The government stands there pretending to be interested, sometimes announcing a grant to assist in building, I do not know, 50 homes in Toronto or something. I am sure it helps, every little bit helps, but the real assistance, surely, is to organize our taxation in such a way that it does not penalize people who want to buy a home. So what do we do to those poor people who are trying to find a place to live? We increase the tax on their houses, the tax on construction materials. Shame on the government.
I say to the minister that he should rise immediately in the House and withdraw this bill. I know he will not do it. The Minister of Finance just will not bring himself to rise immediately in the House, as I am suggesting.
To make matters even worse for my constituents living in rural Canada who commute to various cities to go to work, this bill will increase the excise tax on gasoline. I remember the Conservatives across the way would complain when they were in opposition, because they said that the previous Liberal government had increased taxes on gasoline. Of course, we remember that most of the increases in the early 1980s were due to increases in the actual price of the product as opposed to increases in taxes, but no matter.
Every budget since this government came to power in 1984, and a sad day it was in 1984 I might add, has increased the excise tax on gasoline. This tax alone, this latest increase, will add $660 million to the burden my constituents and your constituents, Madam Speaker, and all Canadian citizens have to pay to this government across the way.
I know the bill contains a fuel tax rebate to some primary producers in respect to sales tax on gasoline and highway diesel fuel for off-highway production purposes

and that it is extended for one year to December 31, 1990, pending the so-called sales tax reform. The bill also contains some minor technical amendments relating to the so-called burden of proof under the Excise Act for the marketing of tobacco products and the penalties for selling or possessing illegal tobacco products.
There is also in this bill the imposition of a sales tax on laundry detergent. I say we will not get clean government with strategies like that, taxing detergent. It would seem that things have to be cleaned up across the way but that is the last thing they should be taxing.
The long and the short of it is that we just cannot trust the government across the way in the area of taxation. It is difficult for us to imagine that we could not trust the government across the way. I am saddened to tell you this, Madam Speaker, as you can tell.
Let me give some examples of reasons why I say this. All of these bills are presented to us as sort of the last cleaning up of our taxation system before tax reform is implemented. But here are some promises that the Conservative government made, and more particularly, the Minister of Finance. I invite him to respond to this later, if what I am telling him is inaccurate. I think that what I say will remain unchallenged by the minister. He will not respond to this.
On October 8, 1988, he said to The Toronto Star, a very reliable source of information, "The bottom line is that the GST will not be used to raise revenues of the Government of Canada". In other words, it would be revenue neutral.
On CTV National News, Friday, June 19, 1987, the Minister of Finance said, "again, what we are trying to do is be using your words, revenue neutral in the second stage as well". You probably remember, as I do, that the government proposed to us a first copy or white paper or draft of what it proposed to include in the second stage of tax reform. What was one of the first sentences in the document? It was something that this proposal is presented in order to reduce the deficit of the Government of Canada. I ask, how does a revenue neutral tax reduce the deficit any quicker than the previous tax? I still have not received that explanation from the Minister of Finance. I challenge him to respond to this. I know he
Government Orders
has not responded to any of the questions I have asked in the last 15 minutes.


David Walker: He is not interested.


Don Boudria: I guess he is just not interested. The bill we are dealing with today is all about the invisible taxes, those kinds that are the silent killers of jobs. Those are the ones included in Bill C-20. We are making the silent killers of jobs just a little bit worse today by adopting this bill if that is what we do. In the unlikely event that we approve this bill later, that would be the ultimate result.

On June 18, 1987, Madam Speaker, referring to the Low visible of this new value added tax was going to be, the Minister stated, and I quote:
Sales tax reform will eliminate the hidden tax in the prices
consumers pay.
This is an excerpt from the House of Commons Debates of June 18, 1987.
Then, on June 22, 1989, some two years and four days later-you know what difference two years can make, Madam Speaker. Please note that an election had taken place in the meantime, but this suppose is only a mere coincidence. I am sure it did not influence the Minister's opinion in any way.
The Minister said-I am pleased to see the Hon. Member for Megan tic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) across the floor, for I have something to say to him later.


François Gérin: That is not what you said!


Don Boudria: Then on June 22,1989, we were told, and I quote:
Our legal advice is that we do not have the legal right to require a
retailer to impose the tax extra to pricing, or to include it in the
pricing.
Another contradiction! Again, when can we believe the government opposite, Madam Speaker?
Personally, I am sorry to say, I have come to the conclusion that we just cannot believe the government opposite any more, and that the Canadian people were duped by the Tories during the last election campaign.

This leads me to believe, very sadly I might add, that this Bill C-20 should be defeated. I say to all my colleagues across the way, all the ones who can think objectively in this debate as I know they should be able to

November 8, 1989
Government Orders
do, defeat this bill and vote against it, because this bill is a silent killer of jobs. The Minister of Finance said so himself. If the Minister of Finance disagrees with what I said just now, let him rise immediately in his seat and state so right at this moment.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, my colleague just made a good speech about people who he says mislead others. WonderBra-Canadelle has been in Lac Megantic in my riding for a very long time and gives work to many people. This company is also in Riviere-du-Loup and employs many there. This company was also in the riding of my friend opposite and at some point, it changed its operations and decided to shut its plant in my hon. friend's riding and to expand its plants elsewhere, for the sake of greater productivity and competitiveness. The company has invested a million dollars in Lac Megantic. If you knew how angry the company president was when he called me! He said to me: "Who is this Liberal Member to blame it on free trade? Free trade has nothing to do with it. He is completely mixed up! This Liberal MP is trying to confuse Canadians, to mislead Canadians by doing that." I think that he sent him a letter or phoned him.
But the Hon. Member did not write or make a public statement saying that he had just made another mistake, and it happened in his own riding. You know, Madam Speaker, I listened to his speech. It is fun to point one's finger and say, "You misled people, you misled people!" No, we misled no one. The president of the company himself, Mr. Letoumeau, accuses you of misleading your constituents and Canadians in general. Canadelle-Won-derBra has greatly increased its staff as a result of free trade, with freer movement of goods. This company is in an excellent position. So be careful with your accusations! Watch out for those accusations which are completely gratuitous and try, sir, to be objective and impartial. With this Bill in particular, strive for that impartiality which is absolutely necessary for the men and women of today who are called upon to govern the country.


Don Boudria: It is hard not to answer that, Madam Speaker. Of course, it will be very easy to disagree totally with my friend opposite.
First, he, more than others, should know that Cana-delle, when it shut down in my riding, cost 100 women their jobs. I certainly have no apologies to make to Mr. Letoumeau who has just closed a plant in our area and cost my constituents their jobs. If anyone should apologize, it is he-he should come to my riding and publicly say he is sorry to my constituents whom he hired until two months ago, telling them that there were jobs for them, knowing that he would lay them off two months later.


François Gérin: Three hundred jobs in Quebec!


Don Boudria: Now, Madam Speaker, I want to tell my colleague from Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) that he also must know that Canadelle, an American company 100 per cent owned by Sara Lee of Chicago, bought out its only competitor in Canada, Daisy Fresh, or what was for all practical purposes its only competitor. So Canadelle has almost cornered the market. This company has the whole market to itself in Canada.
Investment Canada's criteria are such-


François Gérin: A wonderful company!


Don Boudria: Investment Canada's criteria, Madam Speaker, are such that the Government of Canada must not allow a competitor to acquire a Canadian company if it eliminates competition. What did the Conservative Government do? It let Canadelle buy out its competitor and there is only one company left in Canada. What do we see today? We see plants close in my riding.
I must tell the Tory Member opposite and other Conservative Members who will listen that as I speak now, there are women in Hawkesbury who are losing their jobs because of this Government's policies. If apologies are in order, the Conservatives whose policies force my constituents out of their jobs should apologize.
I see the Hon. Member opposite, the Minister- At least she no doubt sympathizes with the 95 women in my constituency who are losing their jobs before Christmas.


François Gérin: She is not Minister!


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I must tell you that the matter is not funny.
I think I just recognized an Hon. Member who is not a Minister as being one. I wish she becomes a Minister some day. Perhaps she would be more qualified than those who are now in office-that would not be difficult.
November 8, 1989

I would like to suggest to her that there are hard times in Hawkesbuiy, in my constituency.
On December 1st, 1982, 20 per cent of constituents in that community lost their jobs. That was because of a pulp and paper mill.


Mr. Pronovost:: Getting a new Member of Parliament is the only solution.


Don Boudria: I must tell the Hon. Member for Shawi-nigan that this is not funny.
I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member opposite that at that time in 1982, 20 per cent of constituents in that area lost their jobs. This no doubt was one of the saddest periods in the history of that community. And now, in 1989, when the rest of Ontario is booming, we are hit once more, with that many constituents losing their jobs. And to add insult to injury, it seems those famous corporations have a knack making such announcements before Christmas, as if this was not sad enough. At least they could show a little more sensitivity when choosing the timing.
Anyway, this is my answer to the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, first I wish to express my gratitude to my colleague from the New Democratic Party who has enabled me to go next in the speaking order. Even as I stand here, I am sure that hundreds of my constituents are beginning to gather out in Ottawa South where they hope to hear the truth about the goods and services tax and to express their discontent and displeasure about it.
I wish to speak on Bill C-20 with reference to a veiy particular problem in it. I will resist the urge to go into many of my concerns about the tax that is proposed to replace the existing Excise Tax Act, namely the goods and services tax. My concern relates specifically to clause 8 of the bill. I must say at first glance it appears that the proposal in this bill is just to make a few simple changes to the Excise Tax Act, albeit important ones as it involves increasing the rate at which the tax is imposed on various items.
Government Orders
In clause 8 there is a provision that would shift the federal sales tax on laundry detergents from the manufacturing level to the wholesale level, effective January 1, 1990. While this bill and this clause in particular were examined by the legislative committee, I am of the view, having reviewed the proceedings of the legislative committee, that this review unfortunately did not fully address some key problems which ultimately will serve to cause distortions in this industry.
In the first place, I believe that this shift would cause some significant administrative and legal problems as a matter of enforcement of the act, as well as administrative and financial problems for those involved in the distribution chain with respect to this product.
Moreover, some of these complexities would be imposed only one year before the goods and services tax is to be implemented. We all know of the potential complexities and difficulties that are faced with that. It makes one wonder why a mere year before the imposition of the new tax we are changing significantly the application of the old tax to the laundry detergent sector.
As I understand the laundry detergent industry, clause 8 appears to discriminate in favour of one firm in Canada at the expense of others, fundamentally affecting the competitive environment for this product. To be specific, it appears that the firm Proctor and Gamble has been given a hand by the government when it could very well have tended to its own affairs in the current legal framework.
What is even more disconcerting is that it appears that this matter should have been elaborated upon in the legislative committee. For some reason it was not. Clause 8 in Bill C-20 has the effect of interfering in the marketplace where presumably the marketplace has the ability to sort itself out.
Generally, tax shifts of this type are determined through consultation with the relevant industry, usually at the request of the majority of the industry in Canada. It concerns me that the majority of the industry does not concur with the approach the government is taking in this specific case.
Pet litter, video cassettes and automobiles are all examples of cases in which such shifts have occurred in the past, where the majority of the industry in question has made the request to shift the tax to a different level in the production distribution chain. This majority request scenario usually benefited Canadian manufactured

November 8, 1989
Government Orders
goods versus imported goods. The following points should be considered before we proceed any further with this bill: first, it is patently unfair to make this move since it benefits one manufacturer and discriminates against others. It therefore puts the government in the position of helping one manufacturer over others. Second, it is in effect for only one year, assuming that the goods and services tax is in fact enacted by this House and implemented as of January 1, 1991, which we have all read about in the newspapers.
Likely, therefore, the legal problems for the government and the industry during this year will just compound the difficulties to be faced with preparation for the implementation of GST. Next, the financial return to the government, as I understand it, is insignificant. Finally, finance has apparently elected not to provide in the bill a definition of laundry detergent but has decided to leave that matter up to Revenue Canada to administer.
The proposal moreover has the appearance of being politically motivated rather than being a fiscal proposal consistent with other fiscal measures. For these reasons, I move the following amendment to the motion which is before us:
That the motion be amended by striking out all of the words after
the word "that" and substituting the following:
"Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to a legislative committee for reconsideration of Clause 8 (1)."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Sparrow):: Debate is on the amendment. The hon. member for The Battlefords- Meadow Lake.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to rise today and speak to the motion before us. Essentially the essence of the bill is the increase in excise tax. As we know, every Conservative budget since 1984 has made plentiful use of the consumption tax and used increases as a source of new revenue. We, the New Democratic Party, have estimated that the Conservatives have added more than $900 to the tax burden of the
average Canadian family between the years 1984 and 1988 through increases to the sales and excise tax alone.
In addition, a central tentative tax reform has been to further increase the role that consumption taxes play in our system over all. The 1989 budget contributed significantly to this trend and the move toward the implementation of the goods and services tax continues that contribution. First of all, the Conservative government increased the federal manufacturers' sales tax on assorted items on many occasions through this period of time. As we have heard expressed in this House on numerous occasions and as I have heard expressed in my own constituency during public hearings that I held, this government came into power in 1984 with a manufacturers' sales tax at 9 per cent. That manufacturers' sales tax has been increased a number of times to the point where it was at 12 per cent prior to the introduction of the bill that is in front of us today.
This bill, despite all of the words the Minister of Finance has used to describe the manufacturers' sales tax, killer of jobs being the most prevalent that he has used, despite all of these things that manufacturers' sales tax is being increased in this bill from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent. It is a bad tax being compounded by being increased to further add to the costs of our manufacturers and of our consumers.
The other changes that are proposed in this legislation that is in front of us are an increase in the sales tax on construction materials and equipment for buildings from 8 per cent to 9 per cent beginning January 1, 1990; an increase in sales tax on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products from 18 per cent to 19 per cent, already begun the day after the budget was presented on April 28,1989; an increase in the sales tax on telecommunications and programming services from 10 per cent to 11 per cent beginning on June 1, 1989; and an increase in the sales tax on all other goods, the manufacturers' sales tax that I referred to goes from 12 to 13.5 per cent which began on June 1, 1989. Despite this legislation still being in front of us, that increase has been implemented already.
I think that this has to be taken in an over-all context as we look at what is happening to our economy as a whole and the various pieces and how they fit into it. This government has been attacking the consumer and
November 8, 1989

the individual member of our economic society with little tax increases here and little tax increases there and the over-all impact has been significant.
A couple of things that are of considerable concern to me are the agriculture sector and the northern economy. We have to look at not just this excise bill but the possible implementation of the goods and services tax and the other matters that this government has recently been, in a sense, foisting upon the people of Canada.
I particularly, at this point in the evening, want to draw the attention of the members of the Elouse to the people who live in the northern part of Canada, the people who have been living in areas designated for the northern tax allowance. Those areas include substantial parts of northern Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia.
A task force recently reported to the finance minister. This task force recommended very strongly that the boundaries for the northern tax allowance, the benefit program for people who live in northern and isolated communities, be moved north so that we disentitle from that tax benefit a large number of those Canadians in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia as well as many people in the Atlantic provinces and the northern part of Quebec and Ontario. In Saskatchewan alone, if the recommendations of that task force report are accepted, 150 communities will lose benefits under the northern and isolated posts tax allowance program.
I have called upon the Minister of Finance to reject the recommendations in that report for a number of reasons. These reasons include the fact that the northern and isolated tax benefits program recognized that people who live in these communities have an unfair burden to cariy because of their distance from the manufacturing sectors, from the distribution sectors of our country.
I think particularly of people in communities in my constituency who live some distance from those points. They are paying a considerable amount extra as it is for the goods and services they purchase. This bill before us today increases the cost to those people at a higher rate than it would to the people who live in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. I think it is going to be tough enough on people who live in Montreal, Vancouver, and Edmonton to pay the extra costs that this excise tax bill
Government Orders
will impose on them. Add to that the burden that is going to be carried when the northern people have to pay the new 9 per cent tax, when that is implemented, and then remove the benefit which equalizes them with the larger urban centres. We see that it is a very disproportionate burden that these people are going to have to pay. These are people who are working, raising families, trying to make a living in communities that are a considerable distance from the large urban centres.
Many of them are there because that is their home, that is where they want to be and that is the quality of life that they want for their children. They are close to other family members and, as a result of the removal of their tax benefits and the imposition of these new taxes, it is more and more difficult for these people to live in the same world and society that is being lived in by those members of the House from the larger urban centres, particularly the Minister of Finance from downtown Toronto. People who live there cannot understand what it is like to have to get up on a 40 below January morning and have to drive 50 miles in order to get to the place where you are going to earn your living that day. It is a situation that I consider to be quite intolerable.
The northern tax benefit program was one that I considered to be not quite as fair as it could be. I have had many opportunities to discuss that program with the chairperson of the northern tax program prior to writing his report. We discussed quite a number of things including the fact that the existing program was unfair to a number of those people in the communities. We were looking at ways to make that program much fairer for the individuals who live there.
I can think of many different scenarios that were presented to the chairperson of the task force that would make the program more fair for those people who living there. Instead, what was it that the task force did? On the advice and direction of the Minister of Finance the task force decided that it had to cut the costs of the government and foist those costs on the people who live in the northern part of Canada. We estimate $100 to $150 million will be coming out of the economy from the northern and isolated communities because of the recommendations of this task force report. That will be $150 million going to the coffers of the government from northern residents all at once and on a yearly basis. I think it is an appalling situation that has to be corrected

Government Orders
immediately. The only way to correct it is to reject the recommendations of that task force.
Those people who came before the task force said that it is an unfair tax and proposed different ways to deal with it. The chairperson of the task force decided that instead of dealing with this in a fair manner, he would simply move the boundaries north in order to get away from the squabbles and arguments that were occurring in some of these communities. They wanted to set it up so that it would be far enough away from the population so that there would not be much fighting over where the boundary line is.
In terms of neighbours, you are talking about two people who live in a community, two people who have separate properties and put a fence down the property line. One person decides that that fence is in the wrong place and starts to argue over where that fence should be. This government is proposing to expropriate the land, pull down the fence and force those people to live under rules which no longer apply to them. It is a situation that creates a worse unfairness than that which existed before, and that has to be corrected. It is not going to be corrected at all when we have to deal with legislation like that which is in front of us today which calls for the continued increased in taxes.
I might indicate that under all the circumstances that we see here the average northern family in Canada can look at increased costs of $710 a year as a result of the budget this year of the Minister of Finance, and $1,000 after the tax reform of the government has been implemented by 1991.
It reminds me of a story that I heard recently about a young fellow by the name of Brian who was going to school. The teacher found young Brian out in the schoolyard just a hammerin' on one of his schoolmates. The teacher said to young Brian: "Why are you pounding on your friend? You have him down. Why are you hitting him when he is down?" Young Brian looked up at his teacher and said: "Well, that is what I got him down for, teacher".
That is exactly what this government is trying do to people of the north. It has them down and is continuing to hammer at them; first of all with excise tax increases, second with the removal of tax benefits that equalizes
their ability to live in the north and, finally, with the goods and services tax. Hit them when they are down. That is exactly what this government is attempting to do here.
We can look at what the excise tax means to the people of the north. There is a 10 per cent telecommunications tax. If there is anything that technology in this country is doing, it is improving the ability of northern Canadians to communicate for health purposes, for business purposes, and for many other purposes that make life a little easier in the north. No sooner is the technology available to assist northern Canadians to live their lives better than the government comes along and puts on a new tax that makes it more expensive for them to utilize those new technologies.
We can also look at building materials. This excise tax bill increases the cost of construction in the north, a direct cost on something that is already very expensive. We know that people in the northern communities, the Indian and Metis communities, or just any of the communities in northern Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, and other parts of the country, the costs of construction and the costs of living are much higher than anywhere else. This government comes along and says that it is going to make it more costly for them to live there and is doing absolutely nothing to try to equalize those costs through the tax benefit program that is being removed.
There are quite a number of things that I would like to say. I could go on and talk about the goods and services tax. Before I conclude today, I should mention briefly that witnesses appearing before the finance committee talking about the cost of living in the north indicated that it is possible that the implementation of the goods and services tax could cost northern Canadians as much as 26 to 30 per cent more for their goods because of the way in which the tax will be calculated on transportation and the handling of goods that are going up to the north.
We are talking about things that are not taxed and will not be taxed under the existing legislation. Food in the north will actually be taxed because it has to be transported to the north. That transportation will be taxed, as you are very much aware, Madam Speaker. That is not going to be subject to the rebate program that the government has been talking about.
November 8, 1989

The government is forcing Canadians not just to think about tightening their belts, not just to plan to tighten their belts, but is forcing them to actually tighten their belts themselves. The member for Mississauga South, who is the chairperson of the finance committee, was quoted yesterday in this House as talking in a letter about the government stealing money from Canadians. There is no question that this forced belt-tightening by this government is taking money out of people's pockets. They are taking away the disposable income from people in rural and northern Canada, the disposable income that is so important to stimulate those economies. We have incredible amounts of difficulty in the north and in rural parts of Canada, a lot of which has to do with no disposable income. The price at the farm gate is insufficient to provide disposable income for the agriculture sector. Therefore, there are no extra funds to maintain and build small town Canada. The same applies to northern and isolated communities. This government is forcing that upon us, and there is no recourse for the people in these parts of the country.
The New Democrats have long recognized the inequalities in the existing sales tax system. There is no question. The Minister of Finance points it out day after day in the House here that we want reform of the sales tax system in this country. Unlike the Conservative government opposite, our reform objective is to limit the role consumption taxes will play in our system, not to heighten it further. The economy can ill afford the possibility of higher interest rates which will be caused by these sales tax increases.
The sales tax increases will add to the inflationary pressures that we feel. As a result, the interest rates in the country will go up. Again, in the rural and northern parts of the country, there is no question, interest rates have to be dealt with by this government quickly and in an appropriate fashion for those communities.
I look forward to other opportunities when I can discuss the goods and services tax in particular. In a previous speech in this Chamber on October 7, I mentioned that I held public hearings of my own in my
Government Orders
constituency. Residents of the community came and presented their concerns about the goods and services tax. I have since written a report, and presented it on behalf of my community and my constituency to the members of the finance committee. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the results of that hearing and the recommendations in that report with members opposite in this Chamber at another time.


Mr. Althouse:: Would the member for The Battle-fords-Meadow Lake care to briefly tell us some of the things that his constituents were telling him about the goods and services tax.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: I appreciate the opportunity the member for Mackenzie has given me.
We had representations from almost every sector of our economy. We had representations from the farm community, the business community, the charitable organization sector, the tourism sector and the service sector. Many individuals, groups and organizations came before us. The public hearing was shared and co-chaired by a member of the legislative assembly in the urban part of my constituency, Mr. Doug Anguish, a previous member of this House. Members of the community came before us and presented their concerns.
One of the particular concerns that struck me was the effect that the goods and services tax will have on the charitable organizations in our community, not the charitable organizations that may in fact get a 50 per cent rebate on some of their costs, but the ones that will not be eligible for rebates at all. One in particular the member for Mackenzie might be interested in is the Agricultural Society, the organization that puts on and sponsors our annual summer fair. It brings in numerous people from throughout the country to display their agricultural products, their livestock, their poultry, as well as participate in the midway and the fun and games that go along with a country fair.
The Agricultural Society or the Exhibition Association, as they are called now, came before us and indicated that the goods and services tax is going to be applied to admission cost. In a sense, this will deter people from coming to the fair.

November 8, 1989
Government Orders
The tax will be applied to the sale of lottery tickets. Saskatchewan already applies a tax to lotteries. We call it "the tax on dreams". The people of Saskatchewan are turning their backs on the provincial government because of this 10 per cent extra tax on lotteries. Can you imagine what will happen when there is another 9 per cent added to the cost of this so-called tax on dreams?
That affects the Exhibition Association and the running of our fair in that the fair organization makes money by renting stalls to charitable groups and organizations for the sale of raffle tickets. One organization will be raffling a crocheted item, another one maybe a large quilt that has been made by a large number of people. The funds raised by these raffles are used for community events. The cost of those raffle tickets in Saskatchewan has more and more reduced the sales of them. The charitable organizations putting on those raffles are no longer coming to the fair and renting the stalls.
The addition of the goods and services tax means that the revenue base that is available to the Exhibition Association is less. It will not be long before we find that the Exhibition Association no longer has the revenues it needs to provide that fair which brings tens of thousands of people to our community in the Battlefords for those fair days. That is money that is not going to be spent in our community on other things like restaurant food or hotel rooms, all of which will be subject to tax which were not taxed before.
I want to raise briefly one other example. I am looking forward to quite a large block of time offered in this House to discuss this matter more fully. The North Battleford City Kinsman Band, an organization that is sponsored in part by a local community group which provides music lessons for young children in our community, is going to have to raise an additional 8.7 per cent in operating funds just to survive from year to year because of the imposition of the goods and services tax. This is a horrible situation.
This band, the number one marching band in Canada right now, as a result of Canada-wide competitions may not exist, according to the bandmaster and the band's parent association, in three years time because of this goods and services tax forcing the cost of music lessons up, increasing the costs that parents have to pay to have those kids in that group. It does not qualify under the charitable provisions of the goods and services tax for any rebate whatsoever.
People from many other sectors talked to us including tourism, hospitality and agriculture. I look forward to talking about those sectors at another time.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to get up and speak to this house as the member from Nunatsiaq, the good land, the beautiful land. Before the end of the Thirty-fourth Parliament I intend to ensure that all members know more about the area I come from. Hopefully, some of them will be able to come up to see for themselves, as my colleagues from my party had the good sense to do over the course of the summer. I invite anybody who is willing to come there to see for themselves not only the beauty of the land, but also the way people live up north and how hard it is to live there with the cost of living being as high as it is. I would like to touch on that during the course of my speech addressing the bill on excise tax.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Tax. This bill implements certain changes announced in the budget of last April concerning excise taxes and duties on tobacco products and gasoline and increasing sales tax rates pending the implementation of the goods and services tax.
Last June, at second reading of this bill, the Minister of State for Finance said: "The measures taken in the April budget were carefully chosen to ensure a balanced approach that takes regional situations into account and that imposes the heaviest burden on those who are most able to bear it". On behalf of northerners I would like to challenge that statement.
In referring to the federal sales tax as the centrepiece of another government strategy to strengthen Canada's economy and preserve essential programs, the minister said: "The sales tax will result in significant gains for economic production in all sectors of the economy and all regions of Canada". Again, on behalf of northern regions of this country, I challenge that statement as well.
A budgetary measure which is being implemented with this bill is an across-the-board increase in the existing federal sales tax rates in advance of the goods and services tax. The federal sales tax rate increases are, according to the government, a revenue bridge to the new goods and services tax.
November 8, 1989

What are these rate increases? There is a 1.5 per cent increase in the general sales tax rate from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent effective June 1, 1989. Effective April 28, 1989, there was a 1 per cent increase to 19 per cent for alcohol and tobacco products. Effective June 1,1989, the federal sales tax rate on telecommunications and telecommunication programming services was 11 per cent. On January 1, 1990, the federal sales tax rate on construction materials goes up to 9 per cent. All together these measures will contribute to about $1 billion in 1989 and $2 billion in 1990 toward reducing the deficit.
Excise duties on cigarettes as well as federal sales taxes are raised so that the federal revenue from a carton of cigarettes is increased to $4. This bill also implements increases in excise taxes on gasoline and aviation gas. Effective April 28 the excise taxes on gasoline rose by 1 cent per litre. They will rise again on January 1, 1990, by an additional 1 cent per litre.
The tax increases which are being given effect by this bill have negative effects on the north and northerners. There is a program at the present time under which primary producers such as farmers, fishermen, loggers, miners, hunters and trappers receive rebates on federal sales and excise taxes on motor vehicle fuels. Hunters and trappers currently receive a rebate of 5 cents per litre of gasoline. After December 31 of this year hunters and trappers will no longer receive rebates for the excise tax.
On April 28 hunters and trappers had to pay an additional 1 cent per litre in excise tax on gasoline. On December 31, they will lose the rebate on the excise tax and on January 1, 1990, they will have to pay an additional 1 cent per litre on their gasoline.
The hunters and trappers of the north are among the poorest citizens of this country. They hunt and trap to feed and clothe their families. These tax increases on the fuel they need to assist them in providing for their families is going to impair their ability to do so.
As a general comment, the increase in gasoline and aviation fuel excise taxes also has a disproportionate impact on the north because of the higher usage of aviation fuel for transportation in the north. The increase in the telecommunication tax also affects northern residents in a disproportionate manner. Because of the great distances in the north we use fax machines to
Government Orders
compensate for the poor mail service and we have to call longer distances by telephone.
Sales tax increases, as the government knows, are regressive taxes. Lower income Canadians feel the impact of sales tax increases more than higher income Canadians. Yet it was this government in the previous Parliament that increased the federal sales tax from 9 per cent to 12 per cent. In last April's budget, the government raised the federal sales tax to 13.5 per cent. Now it wants to replace the federal sales tax with the goods and services tax in 1991.
The new goods and services tax is to be applied at the rate of 9 per cent to a broad range of goods and services that have never been taxed before. The government argues that since the rate will be reduced from 13.5 per cent to 9 per cent Canadians will be better off. The government does not want Canadians to remember that it was the government which raised the existing federal sales tax from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent since it was elected in 1984. There is no guarantee, furthermore, that the savings from reducing the tax will be passed on to the consumer. Also, many more goods and services are going to be taxed than before.
When the Finance Committee heard from northerners in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories they heard that northerners do not want this tax. It will impact on northerners more than those on any other part of the country because of the high freight and transportation costs in the north, and the fact that northern costs of living are the highest in the country.
One of the other examples that I would like to use is the proposed 32 per cent increase in postal rates. This increase was supposed to be on November 13 of this year. However, because of the objection of members of Parliament as well as other leaders from the north, Canada Post decided that it could postpone raising the postal rates until January 31, 1990. January 31, 1990 is in three months, and Canada Post considers that it is doing us a favour by giving us an extra three months to try to come up with alternatives to combat the 32 per cent postal rate increase on food, on produce that is sent up to the north.
It is all very well to think that we get a breathing space of three months. However, one must be aware that in those three months falls the month of December in which the government basically stops operating. It is the Christmas month. People want to be with their families.

November 8, 1989
Government Orders
They want to go home for the Christmas holidays. Their minds are on Christmas and they are reflecting on the past year and not necessarily on whether they should be meeting to address the concerns of a few thousand people in the north. Those few thousand people in the north are going to feel the effects of that 32 per cent rate increase on January 31. Yet the people at Canada Post or the minister responsible for Canada Post do not seem to care very much about what will happen when that rate increase goes into effect.
We know what is going to happen. People are going to feel that they can do without that extra cucumber or orange or milk and use substitutes instead. Here it is taken for granted that you can go to any grocery store and buy any one of those things I just mentioned to feed your family so that you have good nutrition. People in the north do not have the luxury of being able to jump in the car and drive to the nearest supermarket to buy oranges, apples, celery or all those other good nutritional foods that accompany what your main meal might be. I must admit that we do have some good food up north in terms of caribou, seal, whale, walrus, whatever. However, we now know that we need that produce to make sure our kids stay healthy.
On January 31, we are going to feel the effects of this 32 per cent rate increase. If there was a 32 per cent rate increase down here there would be chaos in members' ridings. Everybody would be screaming bloody murder from all areas across Canada. I talk about screaming bloody murder because people would not accept a 32 per cent rate increase down here. They would never allow it, never mind a 10 per cent or a 5 per cent rate increase on postal services on which the lifeline of the north depends.
The Ottawa Citizen on Wednesday said: "Northerners Lifeline Goes on Block". It is very true. It is the lifeline that is going on the block. What will happen is that people will go without.
Just by way of example of this happening, earlier in the year there was a report that mothers from Broughton Island had some PCBs in their milk. One mother decided that she should not be feeding her baby on her milk. Because she could not afford the milk that was in
the store, she bought Coffeemate. How much nutritional value does Coffeemate have? That is what will happen to the people up north with this increase of 32 per cent added on to the 9 per cent goods and services tax. Added on to that is the fact that unemployment insurance benefits are now going to decrease by three weeks from 42 weeks to 39 weeks for those who work 10 weeks or less, and for those who work 18 weeks or less from 50 weeks to 47 weeks.
With all that, we are not going to be able to afford to buy any store bought goods. We can hardly afford to buy them now. Earlier in the summer we heard on national radio that one of the members from our party went into a store in the Iquluit, looked at a turkey, and could not believe that that turkey cost $70. Here you can go into any store and buy the same turkey for about $25. No wonder we do not really have Thanksgiving. To give thanks for Thanksgiving you have to spend so many dollars just for the turkey, without the trimmings. It is always an honour for me to address the House and try to teach the members a little bit more about the north. I hope that before the end of this Parliament a lot of members will be more knowledgeable about the north.
In the Throne Speech earlier this year in April the north was mentioned quite prominently. At that time my remark was, "Great, we were mentioned quite prominently". I figured that we were sort of being handled with a velvet glove before the hammer came down. It seems that this has been the case today.
In conclusion, I would just like to take this opportunity to say that there has to be some recognition that the north is a very unique area where special concerns have to be addressed in terms of the economy, how the people live and where the cost of living is two to three times higher than here.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I rise, not entirely unmindful of the consternation this may cause in the breasts of some members, to participate briefly in the debate tonight. In the form of something of a protest. I understand the question before the House at the moment is and seconded by members of the Liberal Party. It takes the form of a six-month hoist.
November 8, 1989


Don Boudria: It's a reference to committee.


Ross Harvey: It is not a hoist? I am sorry then. My objection remains. It is simply this. The hoist amendment and the referral amendment are in essence boring. It is these boring dilatory formulations with which this House has been afflicted on several questions now during this session.
I, for one, would like to take this opportunity to urge my friends in the Liberal Party if they are going to continue to propose dilatory motions at various readings to move more into reasoned amendments. Reasoned amendments have about them the advantage of a certain political joie de vivre in that they are almost without exception the opportunity to propose exactly why it is that the bill before the House is execrable and ought not to be proceeded with. This lends to the debate in such instances a certain focus-


David Walker: Slow down. We can't keep up with you. What was that word?


Ross Harvey: Am I to put up with this harassment, Madam Speaker?
If I may be allowed to proceed, I would only say and emphasize, if I may, that the reasoned amendment is a course that I would commend to my Liberal friends in the House. This one, for example, was perfectly susceptible to a reasoned amendment dealing with the increase in the manufacturers sales tax from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent. It was the perfect opportunity to place a substantive objection before the House in the form of a reasoned amendment and thereby stimulate, as is to be hoped, some reasonable, intelligent, even dare I say it, passionate debate on that question. But, no, once again we have the tepid, flaccid, in most respects pointless dilatory motion to refer to a committee. I ask you, Madam Speaker: in the array of devices available to a parliamentarian in this House, there are few that could be deemed more boring. It is unfortunate that this is the sort of material given by the Liberal caucus to this House for this House to deal with.
Having said that, I would just say, of course we will support this dilatory motion, because it is-


Don Boudria: It is not a dilatory motion.


Mr. Peterson:: It is a hoist.
Government Orders


Ross Harvey: The Liberals cannot agree among themselves. I will grant them that it makes it somewhat less boring.


David Walker: It is a reference.


Ross Harvey: Now it is a reference. This is getting better all the time.
In conclusion, I would just say that we will support the motion because it is implicitly, at least, a rejection of the bill. That is to its credit. That is all that is to its credit, but it is to its credit.
I think I can safely say on behalf of all of my colleagues here that the bill before the House enjoys no support in this caucus. I assume it enjoys none in that caucus. Perhaps now we can get to the vote.


David Walker: Madam Speaker, perhaps since you are also from Alberta, you can just translate what we have just heard so we can better understand what took place.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Sparrow):: I might have just as much difficulty as you.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, for the benefit of our colleague who was commenting on a subject which he obviously had not seen or heard, perhaps I could take this opportunity to read the amendment to him so that in the future he will at least know what it was that he was talking about earlier tonight.
Effectively, the motion we moved earlier tonight was the following:
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after
the word "That" and substituting the following:
That Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Excise Thx Act and the Excise Act be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to a legislative committee for reconsideration of Clause 8(1)
I just want my colleague to know what it was that he made his speech about. It is always nice to go back home and be able to explain to one's constituents just what one was saying.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for that kind elucidation, although I must say the point remains. The motion lacks the pith and passion that might otherwise be present in a proper reasoned amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Sparrow):: Is the House ready for the question?

November 8, 1989
Government Orders


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Sparrow):: The question is on the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Sparrow):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Sparrow):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Sparrow):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Pursuant to Order made Tuesday, November 7, 1989, the recorded division stands deferred until 12 o'clock noon, Thursday, November 9, 1989.
It being 7.24 p.m., pursuant to Order made November 7, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.25 p.m.