1989-11-07

Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that I have received, in appropriate form, a notice of an application on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Oshawa.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House the possibility, and I emphasize "the possibility", of a contempt of Parliament, which is an extremely serious matter as all members of the House would agree.
I am seeking a ruling from Your Honour as to whether or not a prima facie case can be made on this important subject. If so, I would be willing to move, at the end of my brief comments, the appropriate motion.
Your Honour, my concern arises from conflicting testimony. One set of testimony occurred before a court of law in this city yesterday. The other occurred before a committee of the House earlier this year.
Your Honour, on June 13 the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Mr. Norman Inkster, appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General. The bulk of the questions put to the Commissioner on that day concerned the investigation by the RCMP of the budget leak that took place in April of this year and the subsequent laying of charges against a number of individuals by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Members of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party repeatedly asked the Commissioner about the possibility of political interference in that process. In reply to questions put by a New Democrat
member of Parliament, the member for Victoria, the Commissioner of the RCMP said the following:
The officer who investigated the case swore that he had reasonable
and probable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed.
He went on to say:
The atmosphere in which the investigation was conducted had no
influence on the outcome of the investigation.
A third quote from a number of others that might be selected on the same subject, in reply to the member for Victoria the Commissioner stated:
In all this investigation there has never been any political influence.
By the way, this evidence of Mr. Inkster was reported back to the House in a report on the Estimates for 1989-90. So it is a subject matter that has left the committee and is now before the House of Commons. Yesterday, in a court here in the city of Ottawa, Staff Sergeant Richard Jordan provided evidence that completely contradicted what Commissioner Inkster had to say. The court-


Mr. Speaker:: I have allowed the hon. member to proceed and I think his point is made. It is not necessary for the Chair to go into what somebody did or did not say in the courtroom and I remind hon. members that that evidence may not even be concluded yet.
However, I have the point that the hon. member is making and I would ask him to continue his argument. He does not need to go into what was or was not said yesterday. The point that the hon. member is making is that both in the courtroom and as reported in the press there are statements which, at least allegedly, might be taken as contradictory to the statement which is on the public record, of course, made earlier by another member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to which the hon. member has referred. So I would ask the hon. member to conclude his remarks.


John Edward Broadbent: Of course I respect what you have had to say and I simply give one quote to make my point that there is a contradiction. Yesterday Staff Sergeant Richard Jordan stated:

November 7, 1989
Privilege
I did not lay these charges because I had formed the opinion that
they were intended to please elected officials.
He said similar things that contradicted what Commissioner Inkster had to say. When he refused to lay such charges he was taken off the case.
My point, Your Honour, is this. Either there was a contempt of the court yesterday by Staff Sergeant Jordan, or there was contempt of Parliament earlier by Commissioner Inkster.
The very possibility of a contempt of Parliament is extremely serious, it does not need emphasis here in the House. Therefore, Your Honour, if you consider that I have a prima facie case I will move the appropriate motion to have this subject referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, as I see this point of privilege by the hon. leader of the NDP, essentially we are up against the same issue we were up against yesterday and that is the question of sub judice.
We argued yesterday, and I do not want to go back through the Erskine May or the Beauchesne arguments because I think they are clearly on the record and I do not want to take the time of the House.
However, we have very serious concerns that in fact this whole issue is sub judice and will have an impact on the trial. I would like to take a couple of moments to read from a notice of motion which was to be filed on Monday, November 6, at ten o'clock. It is, of course, the motion calling for an order staying all proceedings against all of the accused in this matter.
The grounds of the motion are, and this is what I would like to refer to:
1. This proceeding is an abuse of the process of this court in that:
(a) the charges against all of the accused have an improper motive in that the charge was laid and the proceedings continued in an attempt by the Executive to achieve political ends unrelated to the valid exercise of the criminal law power;
In fact then, one of the fundamental elements of the total basis of this trial is whether or not this trial was politically motivated or whether in fact it is a trial arising
out of criminal actions. That is the very substance of this court case.
So I would argue that not only was the matter raised yesterday sub judice, and we await your ruling on that one, but that this reference as well to a committee hearing is also sub judice and any reference to that issue which reflects in any way on that trial in this House by way of debate, by way of a point of privilege, by way of a point of order, or by way of a question, would in fact be sub judice.
I want to argue in the strongest possible terms that we believe that this issue is sub judice and even to raise it in the guise of a question of privilege falls under the same guidelines.
We indicated yesterday that we have no political problem with answering those questions at an appropriate time. But we are very much concerned with in any way appearing to contribute to a mistrial in a case that is presently before a court in this particular province.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I admire the ingenuity of my friend from Oshawa in the argument that he has put forward. What I took from his submission is the tremendous importance that Parliament deal with the substantive and fundamental issues that were raised by the questions that I attempted to ask in the House yesterday.
I took it also to indicate the importance that some way be found through the voluntary restraint that we impose on ourselves in the form of the sub judice rule in cases like this where fundamental questions going to the root of the responsibility of the RCMP and of the government be dealt with. I understand the argument from the parliamentary secretary is that the question is really the same as that which was raised yesterday.
I make this intervention looking forward with anticipation to your ruling on the questions raised yesterday.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the spokesman for the government, the parliamentary secretary, says that we should not be mentioning the matter of the Small case in any way in this House and yet he reads out and puts on the record a motion that led to the testimony yesterday of Staff Sergeant Jordan. I suggest that the parliamentary secretary cannot have it both ways.
November 7, 1989

I want to go on to say that what is on the record in Parliament, and can certainly be referred to in this House, are the words of Commissioner Inkster to the committee.
If, rather than the staff sergeant's words being stated in court, they had been made in an interview to the press or a speech before an audience, then I doubt very much if the parliamentary secretary would be attempting to say that we cannot go into the implications of the his words in light of the testimony by Commissioner Inkster, apparently contradicting those words, before a parliamentary committee.
So, I ask you to consider, Sir, from the parliamentary perspective, which perspective deals with the words of Commissioner Inkster, why it should make any difference whether the words of the staff sergeant were stated in court rather than to a journalist or to a meeting or to somebody whom he ran into in the street. In all these cases the issue, I submit, arises with respect to whether what was said in a parliamentary committee gives rise to the issue of contempt of Parliament.
So, I respectfully suggest to you, Sir, that we want to be sensitive to the whole matter of sub judice. However I repeat briefly what I said yesterday, it is for the purpose of protecting the accused and ensuring the accused a fair trial. It should not be for the purpose of enabling the government in any way to escape its responsibilities.
So, I submit to you, Sir, that I think there could well be a basis for you to look favourably on the request which has been made to you. I do, however, want to say that while I think there is a basis for this, if you accept the request and rule that there is a prima facie case of privilege, our practice does require that the motion ask that the matter be sent to the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges. But aside from that, I think that there is a basis for your accepting the request that there is a prima facie case of privilege. I respectfully make that submission.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have heard sufficient on this. I take it the hon. member for Oshawa is prepared to move the appropriate motion if I should decide that way.
There are two issues involved in this application. One of them, of course, is the general issue of sub judice to which the hon. parliamentary secretary has referred. The other is the issue of a situation which is taking place in a committee. Under all the circumstances, I will reserve
Routine Proceedings
and I will try to come back to the House and deal with both this issue and yesterday's issue at the same time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in the House of Commons, in both official languages, the report of the comprehensive review of the unemployment insurance regions.


ORDER IN COUNCIL
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


AGRICULTURE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, I wish to table a document, in both official languages, entitled Growing Together-A Vision for Canada's Agri-food Industry.


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both

November 7, 1989
Routine Proceedings
official languages, the government's responses to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



UNEMPLOYMENT


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present today the new distribution of economic regions for the purposes of the unemployment insurance program, which will permit the Government to offer a fairer treatment to those who are without work.
In August 1988, as Minister of State for Employment and Immigration, I announced to Parliament that my Department would undertake a complete review of the economic regions used under the unemployment insurance program.
We must recall that the admissibility of a claimant is determined partially by the region in which he or she lives. The number of work weeks necessary to qualify as well as the duration of benefits depend on the unemployment rate of the individual's region of residence. From this, Mr. Speaker, comes the importance of defining economic boundaries that best reflect the unemployment rate in each region. Since the last revision twelve years ago, many changes have occurred within the Canadian labour market.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to briefly provide some background information, putting into perspective the reason for the new configuration of the economic regions. The essential goal we set for ourselves was based on the principle of equity that underlies our system of unemployment insurance benefits. The concept of regional differentiation introduced into the unemployment insurance program in 1971 recognized the fact that the various regions of the country did not all offer the same employment opportunities and stability. At that time the
country was divided into 16 economic regions as used by Statistics Canada.

In 1977, the introduction of the variable eligibility requirement for extended benefits made the program more sensitive and fairer towards regions with varying degrees of unemployment. Because of this, boundary definitions became a determining factor in qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits.
In 1978, the number of regions increased to 48, with a revision of the system and a structural adjustment to the new realities of the country. Since then and especially since the last recession, the different regional economies have developed throughout the country. The regions defined in 1978 no longer fully meet the new socio-economic realites.

Labour markets change constantly depending on whether the number of key industries in a region is increasing or decreasing. They also undergo significant alterations as changes occur in population trends. We must take these fluctuations into account to deal fairly with the unemployed.

As the unemployment insurance program must closely match regional unemployment levels, it is important that the economic boundaries coincide with Canadian realities. We are talking about a fundamental question of justice and willingness to better serve our clientele. It is therefore essential that we define and set up the economic regions so as to reflect the regional variations affecting employment prospects.
Our Government wishes to promote equal opportunities, ensure a fair distribution of available resources and reach our clientele in an efficient manner no matter where they live in Canada. These are the principles that guided us in our study of the economic regions. We did not hesitate to do everything necessary for a serious, thorough study to reach our objectives.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that this study of the Canadian labour market is one of the most thorough and detailed since the 1960s. Certainly the task was complex. However, one type of geographic unit constitutes a distinct labour market: the large urban centre. Therefore, metropolitan census areas were separated from
November 7, 1989

rural regions in creating the new economic regions. Our methodology is based on this urban/rural distinction.
In accordance with the new configuration that I have the pleasure to present today, the 48 regions which have existed since 1978 will henceforth be replaced by 62 new regions: 26 metropolitan and 36 rural.

The new configuration is in keeping with the objectives that the government has set for itself. All areas of the country are now divided into a much more homogeneous labour market. With the labour market defined by the new economic regions, we will be able to evaluate more fairly the employment opportunities that exist for unemployment insurance recipients in their areas.

Since rural regions and large urban centres are distinct, the unemployment rates in rural areas will be less affected by the economic activity of their neighboring metropolitan areas. The financial impact on the Government will be neutral and may change as unemployment rates change. This redistribution of economic regions was not dictated by financial reasons but by a desire to implement a just and equitable system which makes possible a more dependable calculation of regional unemployment rates.
Mr. Speaker, these new regional boundaries will take effect next January, at the same time as the measures announced by our Government last April, currently contained in Bill C-21.
As the new eligibility requirements and the amount to which recipients are entitled will vary with each 1 per cent change in the unemployment rate, it is necessary to implement better evaluation methods.

The new economic regions demonstrate our government's desire to deal as fairly as possible with those who need to use the safety net of unemployment insurance.


Hon. Warren AUmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my first reaction to the government's statement this morning is to question why this report was delayed until today, the day after we had the final vote on Bill C-21 dealing with unemployment insurance. As you know, we have been debating that bill for the last several weeks. The government imposed closure. The final vote was last night and today we get the report of the
Routine Proceedings
government on the new unemployment insurance regions.
In order to understand Bill C-21 these new regions were very important, essential to a full understanding of that bill, because the bill implements new eligibility requirements and new benefit periods which are based on the regions in which you live. Yet the government has delayed this report to the day after we passed the bill.
This is typical of the government, which tries to hide information from the public and from Parliament so that we cannot have a full discussion. It is bad enough that the government imposed closure at all stages. We had one full day and two half days of debate on a very complicated and important bill at second reading. The government imposed closure once again at report stage and third reading and we did not get all the information that related to the bill until the day after the bill was completed.
I want to point out that, as the minister said, the last update on unemployment insurance regions was in 1978. But since about 1985-86 members on this side have been asking for an update of regions with respect to unemployment insurance. In particular, my colleague from Westmorland-Kent in New Brunswick has been asking for new regions. What we have heard this morning will not improve the situation.
The government says that the purpose of these new regions is equity and justice for the unemployed. Well, that will not be accomplished by the new map that the minister gives us this morning and I will explain why. It will not be accomplished because we have large numbers of unemployed in regions with low unemployment rates and under Bill C-21 it will be even more difficult for unemployed individuals in those regions to qualify for unemployment insurance.
Let me give you an example. In Toronto the unemployment rate is 3.4 per cent. That is the lowest in the country. It is virtually full employment. But there are still 68,000 individuals unemployed in the Toronto metropolitan region. In Newfoundland the unemployment rate was 17 per cent but the total number of unemployed was 41,000. In Nova Scotia the rate was 10.3 per cent but the total number of unemployed was 43,000. So we note that in Toronto, although there is an unemployment rate of 3.4 per cent, there are almost double the number of unemployed that there are in Newfoundland or in Nova Scotia. Under Bill C-21, because of the unemployment rate in Toronto, an individual will have to work for 20 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance. They will

November 7, 1989
Routine Proceedings
have to wait for the maximum number of weeks to be qualified.
I point out that a report published this morning states that there are now 20,000 homeless people roaming the streets of Toronto and that 84,000 households depend on food banks. So the 3.4 per cent unemployment rate does not tell the whole story with respect to Toronto.
In Montreal the September unemployment rate was 8 per cent but there were 126,000 unemployed, which again goes way beyond the total number of unemployed in Newfoundland or in Nova Scotia. In Montreal, because of the unemployment rate, it will require 16 weeks of work to quality while originally it had been ten weeks. In Vancouver the unemployment rate was 6.1 per cent in September but there were 51,000 unemployed.
To go back to Montreal, I raised this matter in the House in June when a report was published by the Montreal Commission for Economic Development. That commission pointed out that in 23 neighbourhoods in Montreal the unemployment rate was over 15 per cent, and in six neighbourhoods it was over 20 per cent. For example, the report pointed out that in Park Extension the unemployment rate was 21 per cent. In Plateau Mont Royal it was 18 per cent.
This new map which isolates the metropolitan regions so that they are hived off or separated from the rural regions may be a good thing for the rural region, but it does not answer the problem of equity. It does not answer the problem of justice because the new map has to be considered with the provisions of Bill C-21.
The minister in putting forward this map or this report this morning said that this is going to bring about equity and justice for the unemployed. I want to point out that in the last Parliament the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration in considering this matter stated: "Your committee supports the principle that the same treatment should be afforded claimants in all regions. A common program would provide more equitable and more compassionate treatment of disadvantaged persons in lower unemployment regions
whose individual circumstances are not reflected by the regional unemployment rate".
The committee recommended a common entrance requirement of 10 weeks no matter where you live in Canada because individuals are affected by unemployment, not regions. The unemployed person in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, even though the unemployment rate may be lower than in the rural area, is just as hard hit as the person in the rural area. It is unfair to make this even worse by this new map that the minister has put forward today.
I referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration which stated that all unemployed claimants should be treated the same, and that we should have one common standard for the whole country. I also refer to the Forget Commission, a royal commission set up by the government in the last Parliament.
What did Mr. Forget in his royal commission say? The commission said "that the current program is perceived by many to be unfair, illogical and at variance with the principles of social insurance and overly complex. Different criteria are applied and different benefits are provided to individuals who are in similar circumstances. The entrance requirements are complicated and there are different benefit phases". It goes on to say "that the practice of basing eligibility on the local unemployment rate is unfair since that rate is a poor indicator of job opportunities".
Because of all those things this new map of unemployment regions put forward this morning may help in some rural areas, but it is going to worsen the situation for unemployed in the metropolitan regions.
Another reason why the report tabled by the minister this morning is not acceptable is that the government, according to the recent report of the Auditor General, has cut back on the resources to Statistics Canada. As a result of those cut-backs reports on labour market statistics are now questionable or unreliable. I pointed out in a question that I raised in this House on October 26 following the Auditor General's report where the Auditor General had said that the sample sizes of the labour force survey have been reduced due to recent
November 7, 1989

budget cuts. Consequently, he said, the accuracy of the survey is now doubtful.
He pointed out that in 1986, 5,217 households were dropped from the survey. If you are going to cut back on the resources to Statistics Canada, how can Statistics Canada give us reliable and accurate information with respect to unemployment?
This report and this policy produced by the government this morning is not acceptable. It is more tinkering. It is more ad hockery. It is more of the politics of rhetoric. It is going to make it worse for the unemployed in the large cities of Canada.
We are going to ask that this report be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration so that it can be considered in detail vis-a-vis the new Bill C-21 which went through this House.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard this morning is one of the major aftershocks of the earthquake that hit not just the unemployed people of Canada, but hit all Canadian citizens in April with the introduction of Bill C-21. Is it not amazing that when it is convenient for the government it can act in so much haste?
This is not a crucial part of Bill C-21, but an absolutely fundamental part. The changes to the boundaries affect what happens in Bill C-21 so fundamentally that all should have been part and parcel of the same thing. The citizens of Canada should have been able to assess what was happening to their lives, to their families, to their children, to their jobs and to their possibilities of income security at the same time as Bill C-21 was being considered.
There has been haste when it suits the government. There has been closure at every stage. For all intents and purposes there was closure on the length of time that the committee was able to travel. There was closure at report stage and at third reading. But there has been tardiness, again when it suits the government, in the introduction of these fundamental changes to what goes on in the regions, and fundamental changes to the boundaries. That is-to repeat myself, and it bears repeating-fundamentally part of Bill C-21. There was tardiness because, again, the government, as it did with the impact study, did not want the Canadian public to
Routine Proceedings
know what the changes were or how they would impact upon them once Bill C-21 was put into effect.
What this has done is to really put into question everything the government has done. By implication, by guilt through association, it has put into doubt what the opposition has done as well because we were not able to do our job properly on the basis of having insufficient information to go on. It has also put into question the work that a tremendous number of people put in over the summer preparing briefs to present to the committee.
This is just another addition to the vile, I suppose is the best word to describe it, actions of this government in relation to its actions toward the unemployed. Yet the words it is couched in are: "based on the principle of equality that underlines our system". Our system was not all that great before the introduction of Bill C-21, but it sure as the dickens is not anywhere as equitable now, never mind the boundary changes.
Another rather interesting statement in the release this morning is and I think it is a direct quote, but if not it is at least a paraphrase: "The regions defined in 1977-78 are no longer appropriate to Canada's current socioeconomic realities. Labour markets change constantly-" Something to that effect was said. Yet some of the underlying rationale of the changes which were incorporated in Bill C-21 are based, according to the government, on something that happened in 1977. That was when it was discovered that if the length of time was extended that people had to work in order to qualify that all of a sudden, magically, they found the time. The government said that it discovered that going through the history in 1977. That was one of the underlying reasons the government made the changes which we find in Bill C-21.
We have an admission that what was current in 1977 is no longer current. What was relevant in 1977 is no longer relevant. I would suggest that that too throws into total question not only Bill C-21, not only the boundary changes, but the philosophy underlying the government's rationale for making these changes.
I conclude by saying that what we have here is another chapter in this government's admission that its system is failing, that its philosophy is not able to contribute to our society in the way that it promised. I suggest that Canadians should take note of what is happening here this morning. They should take note of the tardiness, the haste with which the government works when it suits.

November 7, 1989
Routine Proceedings
They should bear in mind that the same things are going to apply, the same incompetence is going to apply, the same vile nature is going to apply in the matter of other things which the government is going to bring up, whether it is changes to VIA, the GST, or any other supposedly good-for-Canada measure which I am sure will be forthcoming from the government in the future.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the tenth report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. This report concentrates on the annual session of the North Atlantic Assembly.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



HIBERNIA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ACT


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Philip Derek Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-45, an act respecting the OSLO Oil Sands Project.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to increase the effectiveness of the legislation relating to the control of firearms in Canada. In particular, four basic changes are being proposed with respect to firearms acquisition certificates.
The first is to increase the age limit for obtaining a certificate from 16 years to 18 years of age. The second is to raise the fee charged for the certificates from $10 to $100, which should come somewhat closer to recovering the cost of administering the system. The third is to make a certificate valid for one specified firearm. The fourth is to require individuals to provide proof of secure storage for a firearm as a condition before a certificate is issued.


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


Robert Phillip Kaplan: for leave to introduce Bill C-274, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (controlled drugs).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 7, 1989


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


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-275, an act to amend the Criminal Code (human being).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is a private member's bill standing in the name of Mr. Boudria. Mr. Boudria is not here at the present time. Is there unanimous consent to allow-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have the same issue this time with respect to Mr. Brewin who is not present in the House. Is there unanimous consent-


Some Hon. Members:: No.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-276, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (unjust dismissal).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that no employer may suspend, discharge or impose any financial or other penalty on a person employed by him, or take any other disciplinary action against such a person by reason of that person having refused to perform an act that he has reasonable cause to believe is prohibited by law.
Essentially, this kind of bill is called whistle blowing legislation. It can be used by employees, whether public
Routine Proceedings
or private, to ensure that they can act as policemen of the environment or any other law, edict or regulation, federal, provincial or local.


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

Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present petitions from the city of North Bay, Ontario, containing the signatures of 1,900 citizens who believe passionately in the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. They fervently oppose the taking of innocent human life through abortion.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation that will protect life from conception. I wholeheartedly endorse that position.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to introduce petitions signed by 2,885 Albertans who ask the government to pass legislation that would protect the life of the unborn. I support such legislation.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling ten more petitions in the House on behalf of Canadians who object to the proposed 9 per cent goods and services tax, which will take effect on January 1, 1991, unless the Conservative Government heeds the advice of your petitioners and reverses its decision. Your petitioners say:
That the goods and services tax will increase the cost of living of Canadians. This universal tax will be hidden, and it will be impossible for the consumer to detect or monitor the tax.
That this new universal goods and services tax will create serious and unfair hardship for low- and middle-income Canadians. And finally,
That the tax will put a heavy financial burden on small
business.

Routine Proceedings
Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Saint-Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to table a petition on the goods and services tax.

This is a tax, according to these individuals, that really attacks the fundamental fabric of Canada. It will attack our 3.5 million to 5 million poor and single parents, particularly mothers. It will also have a negative impact on seniors, and on students who will be paying additional taxes for their education. They also point out the nightmare that will be caused for business people.

Mr. Speaker, the tax is anti-family and anti-child, and they want the tax to be abolished.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have the honour to present six petitions on behalf of petitioners from all western provinces who are very concerned about the cut-backs to the VIA Rail service, and who feel that the cuts of some $400 million over five years will result in a serious reduction of passenger railway service, threaten maintenance, safety and jobs.
They call upon Parliament to maintain the existing VIA network, upgrade VIA equipment and guarantee VIA sufficient support to carry out its mandate to provide passenger service in Canada.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition certified by the Clerk of Petitions.
This petition is from the community of Heart's Desire in my riding. The people in that area, it is no surprise to you, rely very heavily on unemployment insurance. They are very concerned about the withdrawing of the government's $2.9 billion from the insurance fund, leaving the financing of this crucial program to workers and employees.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these cuts in the unemployment insurance system and to come up with a better system and a more effective regional development policy.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 in opposition to the government's proposed goods and services tax. The petition is signed by a great number of residents of the riding of Kingston and The Islands who are opposed to this tax and who call upon Parliament to reject any government proposal to introduce the tax in this House and to impose it unfairly and unjustly on the people of Canada.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by a number of residents of Burnaby and New Westminster, B.C., and Timmins, Ontario, in opposition to the government's proposed goods and services tax.
The petitioners request that Parliament reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax and cause the government to cease with the proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinaiy Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I also have another in a long series of petitions on the subject of VIA Rail. Again, the petition has been certified as correct by the Clerk of Petitions.
It is signed by a large number of residents of British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba, including two signatories from the community of Craigellachie, which was the site of the driving of the last spike in the construction of the trans-Canada railway. These citizens obviously hope that their community will not see the end of the railway that they played such an important part in establishing.
The petitioners call on Parliament to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's present national network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by students at the University of Calgary located in the riding of Calgary West.
The signatories are over 200 young men and women who care a great deal about the nature and the future of our country. They are asking Parliament to rescind its endorsement of the Meech Lake Accord, to sign a new agreement that will address the concerns of all regions, in fact to unify, not divide Canada, and to provide for popular ratification of all future constitutional amendments.
I know that Parliament will appreciate young people trying to do something positive for Canada.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from residents of British Columbia who are very disappointed in this government's action in cutting parental leave benefits for adoptive parents in the UI legislation. They feel that the 15 weeks of adoptive benefits that we previously had were more in keeping with what adoptive parents need, and that a cut to 10 weeks does not adequately cover the needs of adoptive parents. They ask the government to reconsider and rescind this discriminatory and regressive measure. I am pleased to present this petition on their behalf. It is signed by 50 residents of British Columbia.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am delighted to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of people from Kamloops, British Columbia, who are also concerned about the cuts that the government has made for adoptive parents from 15 weeks to 10 weeks. The feeling is that this is a very regressive step. They are asking the government to reconsider this matter to encourage people who have adopted children to provide that very quality time at the beginning of the relationship.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another matter, again from Kamloops, British Columbia, I have a whole list of constituents who are depressed
Routine Proceedings
with the fact that the government seems to be so callous in the imposition of this goods and services tax. They are calling upon the government to see what this is going to do, particularly to those people living in the regions of Canada, and to go back to the drawing board and start over with some real tax reform.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition regarding VIA Rail. Again, it is from western Canada.
Westerners are pointing out that they believe that the government's decision to curtail and reduce VIA Rail service across Canada is not a terribly thoughtful act. They are pointing out the environmental benefits of passenger rail service and are asking the government not only not to curtail VIA Rail, but in fact to invest and modernize VIA Rail, to encourage more people to take the train than at present.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of a number of producers from western Canada, farmers who are concerned about the direction that this government is taking with respect to agriculture in this country, particularly with respect to its dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board and its removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board.
This petition calls for the government to reinstate oats under the Canadian Wheat Board and to give oats and barley the same protection under the Canadian Wheat Board Act that wheat presently has.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with 12 petitions in hand from all parts of western Canada, northern British Columbia, Vancouver Island, the Lower Mainland, my riding of Mission-Coquitlam, Calgary, other parts of Alberta and from a number of communities in Ontario. The petitioners are appalled at the introduction of a goods and services tax that provides and ensures an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, while imposing even further taxes on average income earners. Pursuant to Section 36, I would like to present this petition.

Government Orders


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first is from residents of the spruce capital, Prince George, in northern B.C., who have signed the petition urging the government to move quickly to ensure that the Forest Resource Development Agreement between the federal Government of Canada and the Province of British Columbia is signed to ensure that the replanting of our harvested lands takes place.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by residents of British Columbia in communities like Lone Butte, Powell River, Coquitlam and Sechelt, who are expressing concern about a disappointment, as the member from Kamloops said, over this government's plans to introduce a goods and services tax. These petitioners call upon the government to bring in effective income tax measures that are fair and equitable to all Canadians.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 21 minutes beginning at one o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that Bill C-43, an Act
respecting abortion, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, before we hear the Minister of Justice make his presentation on this very critical area, I would suggest that we give some thought to the following. Normally when the government introduces legislation, as it is doing today, the tradition has always been that the government would make its presentation, followed by a member of the opposition, then back to the government, and back and forth across the aisle with members speaking in favour of or against the legislation.
Recognizing that this is a special piece of legislation where there may be people speaking both in support or against from all sides of the House, I wonder whether the House would give some consideration to not following the usual course of having a speaker from the government and then from one of the opposition parties, but that we simply look at it in terms of speakers who are speaking for the legislation or against the legislation. In that manner a much more balanced debate would take place over the next few days. Perhaps we could even do it on a gender basis, with an effort being made to have men and women speaking on this in the first hours of the debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we cannot agree to that proposal, basically because it would have to be well known prior to debate what the position of the individual speakers are, and I think that would be prejudicial to the debate.
I would like to just make one point. Is it possible for the House of Commons to provide some of us with additional copies of this bill because it is in great demand by the population? The House is only giving out up to one hundred copies of the bill per member. I wondered if we could resolve that by asking the House of Commons to make available reasonable amounts of copies to those members who request additional copies.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, may I first react to the comments of the official opposition whip. We too would favour publication of more of the bill simply because of the nature of the debate and the interest across the country in it.
If I may respond to my friend, the House leader for the NDP, let me say that we would have some concerns with that because, as has been mentioned, one does not
November 7, 1989

necessarily know the position of particular members on the debate before they speak. Although we are treating this matter as a non-partisan issue, an issue that is bigger than any one party in the House, all the evidence that we are getting at this point clearly indicates that members of the NDP are taking a partisan position en bloc. Unless there was evidence that they too were going to have a free vote for their people, as we are, we would not at this point want to consider that suggestion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the parliamentary secretary have any comment to make on the request made by the member for Ottawa-Vanier?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, we too favour the proposal as put forward by the Whip of the Liberal party. I think it is a good one and I am sure all of us would agree with it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the suggestion that additional copies be made. I think we all appreciate that copies of this bill will be in greater demand than a normal piece of legislation.
Just so my hon. friend the parliamentary secretary to the Government House Leader is aware, all of the members of the New Democratic caucus are of the same mind. They all, in fact, oppose the legislation. He can say what he likes, the fact is that we do oppose the legislation.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a very sensitive and difficult issue, an issue which has moral, ethical, religious, and often very personal meaning for every Canadian. I am referring to the issue of abortion.
In a perfect world, abortion would not be necessary for any reason. We all know, however, that the world is not perfect and that abortions are sometimes necessary. For this reason, we must face the issue of abortion as best we can as individuals, as members of Parliament, and as a government. We must try to come up with a reasonable solution to this sensitive and difficult issue.
We believe that the bill now before the House for debate presents such a reasonable solution to the matter of abortion. The proposed new abortion law, which I will go into in a minute, is understandable, it is workable, and it is fair. It has, as its overriding objective, the balancing
Government Orders
of interests, the rights and interests of women and society's interest in the protection of the foetus.
This proposed law will not satisfy partisans on either side of the issue. Only absolute positions would do that. I think you will agree, however, Mr. Speaker, that this proposed law succeeds in reflecting the different interests which are at stake in such a way that we believe is consistent with the requirements of the Charter of Rights as well as the needs of Canadians.
I would ask in the national interest that all Canadians stop to consider the strong personal views of their fellow Canadians before condemning this bill for not perfectly representing their own personal views.
As background I would point out that for many years it was a criminal act to procure an abortion in Canada. When the Criminal Code was revised in 1969 a new provision was enacted, Section 251, which provided that abortions could be legally obtained if certain conditions were met.
In 1982, we had the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When that came into force included among the protections in the charter is a guarantee of the right of security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
In defence to a criminal charge laid against him, Dr. Henry Morgentaler challenged the validity of Section 251 of the Criminal Code as a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In January, 1988, the Supreme Court held that the guarantee of security of the person and the principles of fundamental justice were violated by Section 251. The Supreme Court found, moreover, that the law could not be saved as being a reasonable limit on such rights as provided for in Section 1 of the charter and ruled that Section 251 was unconstitutional. Canada was thus without a federal law to govern abortion.

The government started discussions and consultations immediately after the decision in the Morgentaler case.
However, three events forced us to postpone a decision on the approach to be taken.
First, during the summer of 1988, we tabled a resolution in the House for general consideration. Once again

November 7, 1989
Government Orders
the House witnessed an impassioned debate. It was impossible to reach a consensus. No motions or amendments were passed. However, the debate and the vote proved how difficult it was to find a satisfatory solution.
Second, the fall election of 1988 obliged us to further postpone dealing with this issue. Finally, we decided to wait for the Supreme Court's decision in the Borowski case before going any further. In this case, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court had to determine whether the foetus enjoyed the right to life guaranteed under Section 7 of the Charter and the equality rights provided under Section 15. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal last March.
Since Section 251 of the Criminal Code was no longer in effect, there was no case, according to the court.

The House will appreciate that while dealing with the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Morgentaler or any legislation dealing with abortion was a matter of great importance, it was also one which demanded the most careful consideration, consultation, and many months of serious study and deliberation.
The work of the Law Reform Commission was carefully considered, and I congratulate the commission for its excellent work. I also want to thank the more than
150,000	Canadians who have taken the time to express their concern to me about this important matter. We believe that we have a reasonable solution to a very difficult issue.
Abortion is an issue which divides Canadians. There are no neutrals, everyone has an opinion. These differences of opinion are reflected in cabinet and in Parliament.
It appeared for a time that the very lack of consensus on this issue made new abortion legislation difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. However, the events of this past summer illustrated a clear need for a national position on the issue of entitlement to abortion and led many Canadians to realize that a balanced approach, recognizing the strongly-held views of all, was required.
I note in passing that the events which led to this reassessment, that is the applications for injunction, could have been made prior to the old abortion law being struck down. Indeed, there were such applications. However, coming as they did in the absence of any federal abortion law, court applications had the effect of crystallizing public demand for abortion legislation. Canadians will never be unanimous about what abortion law should be passed, but there is currently considerable consensus that some federal law should be enacted. Some legal mechanism regulating abortions is in order. As the government it is our duty to act, and through this proposed amendment to the Criminal Code the government is taking action.
We have decided to proceed using the criminal law powers of the federal government. In coming to this conclusion and decision we carefully canvassed all the options there were to address this issue. But only by using the criminal law power, however, can the federal government ensure a national approach to the issue of entitlement of abortion.
The federal government cannot directly regulate abortion or the conduct of individuals in any other way. The federal government cannot directly provide medical services, nor can it prevent court actions, such as applications for civil injunctions to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion. These are matters within provincial jurisdiction. What we can do, and what we are doing, is proposing legislation which will establish a national standard for entitlement to abortion in Canada. It is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that the Law Reform Commission and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition have both endorsed the use by the federal government of the criminal law power to legislate on the abortion issue.

Under the proposed legislation, any woman seeking an abortion will have to consult a medical practitioner. Abortion is a medical act that requires specialized knowledge. Consequently, abortion can only be practised by a person with the requisite medical qualifications, and only on health grounds. If the medical practitioner is of the opinion that the pregnancy would threaten the life or health of a woman, an abortion will be induced. The legislation does not provide what some people refer to as abortion on demand. The term "health" is broadly

defined to include mental, physical and psychological health. The medical practitioner must determine, in accordance with generally accepted standards of the medical profession, whether there are health reasons to justify an abortion.

This legislation is fair to women for it enables women to consult the doctor of their own choice. It also removes the impediments which cause delays in obtaining lawful abortions under the old Section 251 and ultimately led to the section being struck down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional.
This legislation is also fair to the doctor. It requires the physician to apply normal medical standards and principles in making a determination as to whether any of the health grounds exist, and it also allows the physician to make that determination without onerous administrative obligations that could cause delay.
I would also say that doctors who, in the exercise of their medical judgment according to the standards of their profession, determine that a woman's health or life is threatened by a pregnancy, have no reason to fear potential criminal consequences of the legislation. We believe that this law is a reasonable solution which is sensitive to the differences of opinions among Canadians.
Under the proposed legislation, abortions may only be lawfully induced if they are performed by or under the direction of a medical practitioner. This provision obviously applies to abortions induced by medical practitioners, by drugs, or mechanical means. This provision also applies to abortions induced by persons acting under the direction of medical practitioners.
The bill does not apply to a drug, a device, or other means such as an a IUD or a "morning-after" pill that is likely to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum. Preventing implantation is not considered by the medical profession to be an abortion, and neither was it so considered under the old law.
It is well established that only doctors can practise medicine. However, it is conceivable that in certain cases a nurse or a medical technician maybe called upon to act in this regard. Nurses, in these circumstances, are accountable to the physician. The section applies to any person who intentionally and knowingly induces an
Government Orders
illegal abortion, whether it be the woman, a doctor, or anyone else inducing the abortion.
I might mention that in rendering persons subject to liability under the Criminal Code, the government wishes to emphasize society's interest in protecting the foetus and the necessity of medical supervision when an abortion is induced. Criminal liability should be imposed on all persons who act outside of the law.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to Clause 288 of the proposed legislation.
The purpose of this clause is to prevent persons lacking the required qualifications from supplying women with drugs or other noxious things to induce an abortion.
Its intent is also to prohibit such persons from supplying or procuring drugs or other noxious things.

I want to address some charter issues, if I can, Mr. Speaker. We are confident that this bill responds to the concern expressed by the Supreme Court in the Morgen-taler decision. First, the bill creates no legally imposed delays or obstacles to obtaining a legal abortion, other than the necessity to consult other doctors. Under this legislation, a single doctor can reach the opinion that a woman's life or health would likely be threatened based on a normal consultation. Furthermore, there are no therapeutic abortion committees or accredited hospitals required. Unlike the old law, the same doctor who originally sees the patient may also perform the abortion.
Second, with this legislation, stress on the woman and the doctor is minimized. The doctor-patient relationship is respected and the normal medical standards are to be applied.
Third, health is now defined to include the consideration of physical, mental and psychological factors.
Fourth, the bill does as much as it can to ensure that lawful abortions are possible in all areas of the country including remote and rural areas.
Fifth, the clarification that preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum is not considered to be an abortion and is not subject to the proposed legislation will make it clear that the state will not interfere with the

Government Orders
rights and interests of the woman in any way that contradicts the Morgentaler decision.
Finally, there is a clear policy decision to protect the interests of the foetus throughout pregnancy because a woman can only obtain an abortion if her health or life are threatened.
There have been four issues raised during the early consideration of this bill by the public and by the media. Those are namely the question of access, the possibility of third-party criminal charges, the possibility of injunctions and the responsibility of doctors. On the issue of access there are separate questions that I do not think should be confused. First, this bill is based on the principle that the legislation must not contain any unfair or unnecessary obstacles to lawful abortions throughout the country. I submit that this bill contains no such obstacles. It is based on the principle of fairness and equality. Second, what the bill cannot do, and what the federal government cannot legally do, is to regulate the practice of medicine or the provision of medical services including access to abortion services. This is clearly under provincial jurisdiction. Our criminal law power is based on an authority to prohibit and there is no reasonable way to use this authority in a positive way to guarantee access.
On this particular issue, I would like to quote the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition who on April 28, 1969 as reported at page 8059 of Hansard stated:
The hon. member suggests there is a constitutional aspect to this as well. The relationships in civil law between the patient and the doctor, between the patient and the nurse, between the doctor and the hospital, the nurse and the hospital, are relationships falling within the operation of provincial law, the civil law and the constitutional responsibility of the provinces-the subject of statutes which regulate hospitals and the professions. These are properly provincial matters, and this is another reason not to trespass on any of these civil relationships which may be accessory but which are not directly affected by this legislation.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was speaking to the original amendments to the Criminal Code of that day, that is Section 251. The principle still applies. Moreover, we would point out that in the exercise of their jurisdiction the provinces must respect the constitutional rights of women and doctors.
Another issue that has arisen is how this legislation will be policed. It is clear, as before, that the prosecutorial authority will rest with the provincial Attorneys General. I am confident that they and the police will act responsibly, as they have in the past, and in full respect of the Charter of Rights and all of the protections of our criminal justice system, including the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, I am confident that there will be no harassment or deprivation of civil liberties as this would not be tolerated by the Attorneys General or by the courts.
As has been pointed out, individuals can attempt to lay charges under this or almost any provision of the Criminal Code. In this context, that possibility may sound worrisome but we must remember the reason for it. It is a very profound democratic belief that, in most cases, individuals can undertake private prosecutions. However, this is subject to the controlling powers of the courts or the Attorneys General who will ensure that these rights are not abused. In this situation, a private person can only proceed if a justice agrees that the matter should proceed to court and if it is not stayed by the provincial Attorney General. There is no history of numerous fraudulent or malicious prosecutions in this area, and no reason to believe that there will be under this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the government does not think the courts will be inundated with third party criminal charges under the new legislation.
We don't think that will happen. This is a very sensitive matter, and proceedings are likely to involve problems with evidence and other difficulties.
Furthermore, the provincial attorneys general have the power to stay prosecutions that are not in the public interest.

It is important to make the distinction that this is not the same issue as whether civil injunctions will remain possible. As a federal government, we cannot legislate directly in this area, but in this legislation, Parliament will have legislated on matters central to a woman's entitlement to have an abortion, and any civil injunction would have to take that into account. Specifically, it should not be questioned under civil law that a woman has the freedom to have an abortion, if a medical
November 7, 1989

practitioner has reached the opinion that her life or health is threatened as defined in this bill.
I would like to address the role of medical practitioners in this legislation. There may be some concern that they are subject to criminal liability, and indeed they are unfairly given undue responsibility in this legislation. Elowever, doctors have onerous responsibilities in relation to decisions on abortion, but I would like to point out why and how this legislation adds to these responsibilities only in the most reasonable way possible.
First, the government has decided that there should be legislation and that it should balance the rights of the woman and society's interests in the protection of the foetus. To do this, the federal government must legislate under its criminal law power in order to establish this balance in a way that applies across the country.
In looking at how to legislate, the government decided, first, that abortion is a medical act and that doctors must perform or direct that act. Second, that if the balancing mechanism were to reflect the interests of the woman through a health determination, again doctors must make that determination. No one else could.
Having so reasoned, the government then ensured that the responsibilities of the doctor would resemble, as closely as possible, the responsibilities that he or she already exercises and that no extraneous administrative procedures or outside opinions would be required by the legislation. The doctor is as free as possible to decide on whether or not to induce an abortion, how and where to do so, and whether or not to seek outside opinions for medical reasons. In making his or her decision the doctor would do so in accordance with generally accepted medical standards. All that is added by the proposed legislation is a provision for criminal liability if the legislation is not followed.
This is mainly aimed at persons who are not medical practitioners but carry out abortions in unsanitary and unsafe conditions. Medical practitioners are only liable under the proposed legislation if they do not in good faith apply the health standards.
Government Orders
Here is the question. Should someone else, such as a judge or a committee, be added to determine the balance, to take this responsibility? I think this would clearly be unwise because all these decisions are medical.
Moreover, any additional procedures and procedural requirements would add delay and would immeasurably add to the stress on the woman and on the doctor-patient relationship and thereby violate the charter. Clearly this result would be worse for the doctor and for the woman and of no benefit to society. We have every confidence that the doctors of Canada and women will carry out their responsibilities fully and in good faith.
After tabling this legislation last Friday, I returned to Orillia late Friday evening because I wanted to find out just how my constituents would react to this bill. I deliberately moved on Saturday through the market, the bank, up the main street, through the mall. I went to a fiftieth wedding anniversary and a hockey banquet. On Sunday I went out to a rural church where it was the hundredth anniversary of Orillia Central Presbyterian Church. I was engaged by the people of my riding vis-a-vis this bill.
I did not know when I went home just exactly what the reaction would be. Certainly I had seen the reaction from certain parties on either side of the spectrum. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there was overwhelming support from the people I represent. It is not that there were not people on either side who objected to the bill but there was overwhelming support in my area as I was approached from people of all ages and all economic and social backgrounds.
They realize that a compromise was necessary, and they encouraged me to go forward. And we are going forward.

Canadians would prefer to see the need for abortions disappear.
However, we all agree that abortion has been practised in the past, is still being practised today and will continue to be in the future, irrespective of any legislation the government may pass.

Government Orders

Several weeks ago one of my constituents, a doctor, wrote to me about this issue. The doctor in this instance is not pro-choice, but as a result of his medical practice in my home town of Orillia he has come to see the necessity of regulating access to abortion. This constituent in a letter to me and also in person relayed the experience he had as a young medical practitioner working in the emergency department of a Toronto hospital before the enactment of section 251. A young woman was brought in, and as it turned out she soon died, as a result of an unlawful abortion which was poorly done. That tragic story, which was a story that took place all over Canada, must not be repeated.
It is our responsibility as a government, it is our responsibility as a Parliament to ensure in so far as possible that abortion legislation reflects social needs and at the same time respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe that this bill achieves those objectives. I also believe that the matter of entitlement to abortion is one which must be determined by Parliament and not by the courts. It is up to us to try to resolve this issue. That is why the government has introduced this bill.
Abortion is an intensely personal issue. It is one that is not readily susceptible to compromise, much less consensus. Nevertheless, Canadians must appreciate that there are strong differences of opinion among individuals and when those differences of opinion occur it is up to the law to balance the diverging views. That is what we have sought to do.
We are not asking Canadians to change their view as to what they think is right. We are asking Canadians to respect the views of others and to respect this new law.
In approaching this sensitive and difficult issue the government took into account all the views of the Canadian people and balanced those views in a reasonable and workable way. We would not support any amendments that did not take a similar approach and respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We cannot turn back the clock to a time when women's lives were threatened because they could not attain a legal abortion. The law must determine entitlement to abortion. At the same time we must ensure that a mechanism
exists to support society's interest in protecting the foetus as well as the rights of women.
We believe that the legislation we have introduced protects these vital interests in a way that will be acceptable to the majority of Canadians. That is our objective.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, we are now at the second reading stage of this Bill, and normally, this is a time when Members speak out in favour of or against the principle of a bill. When the Minister introduced the Bill today, he mentioned studies, consultations and other work that had been done on the government side to prepare for this moment. We on this side have had only three days since legislation was tabled in the House proposing a solution that was unexpected, to say the least, to the abortion problem. I trust the House will realize that we on this side still have to consult our caucus and that we have not yet had our national caucus. Nevertheless, I am prepared to give a preliminary response to the legislation and the system proposed by the government to deal with the abortion issue.

I certainly agree with the minister that there are few issues that are as serious, that touch as many Canadians as profoundly. Some people may compare this debate in its intensity to the debate on capital punishment, but capital punishment is something very remote from the lives of all Canadians.
Abortion, pregnancy, its termination, the considerations that bear on it are immediate and, if anything, the abortion debate has the additional intensity that comes with its relevance to every family and relevance to every person in our society.
For members of Parliament it is more intense because we literally walk through the debate as we come to Parliament Hill every day, pressed as we are in the streets and in the park in front of Parliament Hill by strongly held views from lobbyists, pro and con, who besiege us as we reach our office where we are inundated with mail and telephone calls and invitations to meetings dealing with two strongly held alternatives on how the problem of abortion should be addressed.
November 7, 1989

Certainly there is a new element in the debate which I as one who has been here for over 20 years have to observe. On the side which calls itself pro-choice, there is an increasing sense of the legitimacy and the ethical foundation of their position. I hope members of the House are taking note of that.
These individuals in the past certainly pressed their case with intensity. They have a very strong sense which I think needs to be recognized from their point of view of having an unwanted child. Not being able to control fertility is a serious ethical issue. Their commitment not to want to bring an unwanted child into the world has to be considered from the same perspective as one considers the point of view strongly held from the other side that a human being is created at conception and that the abortion policy of the country has to be founded on that.
One of the arguments that I have had some difficulty with is the argument that as a man I am not entitled to deal with the issue and that as a chamber filled with mostly men this issue cannot be dealt with by us. It is a serious argument but when one looks at the consequences of not having a national policy on abortion established in this chamber, one has to come to the conclusions that whatever our shortcomings as individuals in this House, whether we are elected men or elected women, we are elected by all the people of Canada, men and women. And if this issue is not addressed, if a national policy is not established, and a good policy, we are going to have a continuation of situations like the Dodd case and the Daigle case. We will see headliners like the one on the front page report this morning from Nova Scotia about how Dr. Morgentaler is being stopped in the province of Nova Scotia, where a different policy would prevail that applies in any other part of the country if the law he was challenging is held to be valid.
I think this is the place to establish a national policy on abortion. One of my criticisms of the legislation that I will come to in a moment is particularly with the policy expressed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, which is that the government is not prepared to have Parliament bring forward a full policy on the subject of abortion.
When the Morgentaler decision in the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code, the opposition under the leadership of
Government Orders
the member for Vancouver Quadra was very quick to respond. Within hours we were on our feet in the House calling on the government to bring forward legislation and to bring it forward on an urgent basis.
We said that the legislation should respect the finding of the Supreme Court of Canada as to the rights of a woman, as to the interests of the foetus. In fact the Governor General-elect who was then the Minister of Justice indicated that the government would respond rapidly and that the legislation would bear more or less on the lines which my leader and I in our questions and in comments to the media indicated our caucus would support.
At the same time we made it clear that for us this would be a free vote. Members of our caucus would not be pressured or constrained to create a unanimous, monolithic party position. We considered the issue to be that important.
Now I want to turn to the actual legislation proposed by the government and deal first with my grave concern about its constitutionality. This is legislation which we know will be challenged as to its constitutionality, but it seems nowadays that all legislation is challenged as to its constitutionality.
What concerns me more about this legislation is that the challenges that we know are coming may well be valid in my opinion. Second, these challenges to this bill if enacted in its present form will in every case involve an unfortunate pregnant woman, either going to court herself or being forced into court by a man-her husband, her boyfriend, her ex-husband, her ex-boyfriend- in the ways we have seen in the Daigle and Dodd cases. This is extremely unfortunate and I feel that it is wrong to subject the country to a validation of this legislation in that format.
I suggest that the government rely on a power available only to it under the Supreme Court of Canada Act to take this legislation now in its form as a bill to the Supreme Court of Canada to have its constitutionality validated.
I want to refer to some arguments on that subject. First, I want to refer to a textbook on references to the Supreme Court of Canada which sets out the legislation and refer to the statement made by the distinguished author, Peter Hogg, at page 181:

November 7, 1989
Government Orders
A balanced assessment of the reference procedure must acknowledge its utility as a means of securing an answer to a constitutional question-the reference procedure has been used mainly in constitutional cases.
And this is one:
This is because it enables a government to obtain an early and (for practical purposes) authoritative ruling on the constitutionality of a legislative programme. Sometimes questions of law are referred in advance of the drafting of legislation; sometimes draft legislation is referred before it is enacted.
I have another quote, but I want to indicate here that I would not have favoured going to the Supreme Court of Canada with an idea or with a question. I do not think that that would have been appropriate. I think we have a job to do here in the House of Commons, to make our minds up about the form in which the legislation should be presented.
I disagree with the Minister of Justice who indicated at a press conference yesterday that a reference would be undesirable in this case but gave no reasons why it would be undesirable. I have the transcript of what he said in the House yesterday. He said, as reported at page 5594 of Hansard:
We feel it is important that the legislation go forward with the imprimatur of Parliament on it. We believe that there was a request for leadership from the public.
I concede that, but for the reasons I have indicated I think a great deal of public good will be achieved by referring the legislation before we proceed with a difficult debate and before we get into the hot arguments on one side and the other that we know will be coming.
I want to refer to another authority on references, Barry Strayer, now on the bench, and his book on the Constitution. At page 281 he said:
The disruptive effect of continuing uncertainty, and the probability of much longer delays before the issues would otherwise have reached the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal, made the reference device a valuable means of clarifying the situation.
Remember that in the Daigle case we were dealing with a pregnant woman who was urging the Supreme Court of Canada to come back from summer holidays to hear her case early because of the urgency of the situation. I predict that this is the sort of circumstance the minister will visit on the country if he refuses to have the constitutionality of the bill established at this point.
The authority continues at page 281:
A There will also be situations where speedy determination is more of a necessity than a convenience.
And he goes on:
A reference may also provide relief where a private citizen would not find it convenient to take a constitutional case to the higher courts.
If a statute is held invalid, numerous citizens will be relieved from compliance with legislation which it was not practical for them to contest individually.
That is the case we are dealing with here. I want to urge the government to reconsider its refusal to have the constitutionality of this legislation tested and, if valid, approved at this point.
From the point of view of the support of the legislation I understand the cabinet supports this legislation. I suggest that endorsement by the Supreme Court of Canada will add stature and will add legitimacy which will assist and facilitate moving the legislation forward and getting it enacted.
I have difficulties with the constitutionality of the legislation for two important reasons: first, the constraint which the legislation contains on women's right; second, the failure of the legislation to recognize the interests of the foetus.
The Minister of Justice indicates that in his opinion the rights of women are fully protected in this legislation. I want to suggest to him that the way this legislation would work is to have two phases for an abortion. In phase one there will need to be a legal determination about the necessity or justification for the abortion. In phase two the abortion will be performed. It will normally be the case. The legislation contemplates that phase one and phase two are presided over by the same person, the doctor. There is no doubt that there are two phases and getting through phase one is a condition that a woman has to be subjected to, outside determination, before she is entitled to move into phase two and have her abortion. We know the Supreme Court of Canada was convinced in the conclusions that it reached, and from the evidence that it believed in its decision, that that determination was not easily obtainable in all parts of our country. It was a lot like having to find a therapeutic abortion committee. In some parts of the country there was not one.
November 7, 1989

It was a lot like making an appointment to appear before them to give the arguments. There are places in our country where a woman will not be able to obtain the judgment of a doctor, which is required in this new legislation. Because of the absence of that opportunity to have a judgment on the question of health, I believe the legislation is at least suspect, if not deficient, on constitutional grounds.
Mr. Justice Dickson pointed out:
The law has long recognized that the human body ought to be protected from interference by others.
That is the way this determination can be seen. Mr. Justice Beetz noted:
A pregnant woman's person cannot be said to be secure if when her life or health is in danger, she is faced with a rule of criminal law-
That is what we are talking about here, and the minister admits it:
-which precludes her from obtaining effective and timely treatment.
I feel that the reservations and the process established constraining the rights of a woman, recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, may invalidate this legislation.
On the other side of it, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized clearly that the interests of the foetus could be protected by the legislation that it invited Parliament to bring forward. Where is that protection? I do not see it in this legislation.
I do not see a clear statement, that at any point in the pregnancy the interests of the foetus should be recognized. I would remind the House of statements made by the Supreme Court of Canada in the decision, statements with which I and my leader agree, which we urge that the legislation reflect. Mr. Justice Beetz pointed out:
- that there would be a point in time at which the state interest in the foetus would become compelling. From this point in time, Parliament would be entitled to limit abortions to those required for therapeutic reasons and therefore require an independent opinion as to the health exception.
The consideration which would justify an abortion being performed in the first week or in the first month, under this legislation, is exactly the same in this legislation as the consideration which would apply in the latest stages of a pregnancy. The legislation sets out no differences in the health considerations of the woman which the doctor is to take account of. There is no
Government Orders
requirement that the foetus interests be given any weight at all.
Madam Justice Bertha Wilson pointed out in the same judgment:
The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the
state's interest in its protection becomes "compelling" -
She left that to the informed judgment of the legislature. She continued:
-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.
Could there be a clearer invitation from the Supreme Court of Canada to consider and develop an informed judgment about what is the the proper point at which that consideration should be given weight? There is nothing about that in the legislation.
This legislation is not informed by the kind of consideration that the Supreme Court of Canada invited us to engage in. Therefore it cannot be called right to life legislation. I know members of the government party will want to call it that but they cannot. It does not develop a concept about the emergence of a foetus, of a human being, and a requirement that that be respected. There is not a word about it in the legislation. For the minister to call this a balanced bill which reflects two points of view is wrong.
He calls for a compromise. I do not see a compromise in this legislation. As I said in the press conference the other day, I see a subtle form of fraud in which the legislation invites women, as I said last week: "Ladies, here it is. All you have to do is find the right doctor. All you have to do is give the right reasons, and what have you got to complain about?"
That is an insulting and humiliating position to deliver to the women of this country. To call it a compromise is misleading. It is a cop-out. It is a failure, really, to address or respect a fundamental difference of views within Canadian society. It is a way of getting around it by copping out, which I think is really more a fraud or a farce than putting water in the wine or compromising in any sense of the word.
It reminds me of the old days when condoms used to be sold in drug stores with the slogan on the side of them: "Not to be used for birth control purposes". I have forgotten the exact language, but it was stated that it was supposed to be used just to prevent communicable sexual

November 7, 1989
Government Orders
diseases. That was a farce. I think we recognized it as a farce.
I am suggesting to the government that the legislation it is proposing is an invitation to the same type of mockery and contempt for the law as was the case back in the days when that legend appeared on the side of every condom that was sold in our country. I do not think that legislation on such a serious subject should be brought forward in a spirit of complicity or in a spirit of fraud. These are the reservations that I have on constitutional grounds about this legislation.
I have other reservations about it. I am glad the Minister of National Health and Welfare is here because I want to quote him. This legislation does not deal adequately with access. This legislation may establish a framework for obtaining an abortion. It does not provide-and there is no companion policy which provides it-that wherever in the country a woman seeks an abortion she shall have the same treatment at a level as is available everywhere else in the country.
This is an issue that is larger than simply the abortion issue. This is the difference between the Liberal way of looking at Canada and the Conservative way of looking at Canada. On this side of the House we feel that the government has a responsibility to provide a large measure of national leadership. We believe it is our job in this place to build up and reinforce Canadian identity through the creation, development, and strengthening of a set of values that we as Canadians believe in, to strengthen them and give them extra meaning, to give them extra definition every day.
On the opposite side of the House, those members do not see the responsibility of the federal government that way at all. They look at this piece of legislation, look at the Constitution, and see that health care is a provincial problem. They say: "Let us pass the buck to them. Let us not try in our way through whatever lawful means at our disposal to assure that women receive equal treatment across the country".
This is what the Minister of Justice said to the Canadian people and to the women of this country last week in his press conference. I have a quote from the transcript:
"It is the responsibility of the Government of Prince Edward Island to determine whether or not the women of Prince Edward Island should have to go to Halifax for an abortion".
It reminds me a little bit of the lotteries legislation. The federal government passed lotteries legislation and provinces could or could not have a lottery; it was up to them to decide. That is where the government places its responsibility for the national health care program of Canada.
We on this side of the House do not see national health care like a lottery. We think of it as one of the greatest sources of pride and unity in our country. We do not hesitate to do what we can do as a Parliament to get this legislation and policy implemented across this country so that whatever the abortion policy is, it will be available to women across the country on an equal basis and not on a totally differential basis from one part of the country to the other.
I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare spoke about the Constitution of Canada yesterday. He said in the House of Commons, as reported at page 5596 of Hansard:
We have an obligation to respect the Constitution of Canada which gives the primary responsibility for the delivery of health services to the provinces. The hon. gentleman concedes the fact that nowhere in the Canada Health Act is any procedure, including life-saving procedures, required to be provided in a specific way by any province. What the hon. member proposes is that we throw constitutionality to the wind -that we engage in an invasion of provincial jurisdiction.
I have news for the Conservatives. It was the national Government of Canada that created the national health care system of Canada. We invaded the provincial jurisdiction by the perfectly legitimate means of federal spending power and federal leadership to create a program which is one of the great sources of national unity and pride in our country.
I know because the Conservatives voted against it back in the 1960s that if it was proposed again or if they were the government at the time, we would not have a national health care program in our country. We have it because the federal government, then a Liberal government, saw a responsibility to provide leadership.
November 7, 1989

Just a few years ago we were constrained to ban extra billing as a national government. I know that if the present Minister of National Health and Welfare saw extra billing developing across this country, fragmenting the plan, tending toward two systems of health care, one for the rich and one for the poor-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We voted for it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: They say they voted for it. I will grant them that they voted for it, but I ask them this. Would they have introduced it? Would the government opposite that talks today about how abortion access legislation invades provincial jurisdiction have invaded it as we did to ban extra billing through a perfectly legitimate means, the use of a real federal power? I am suggesting to the members opposite that the abortion policy, whatever it is, should not be left totally to the provinces so that if, in a particular province, a determination is made that women who want abortions should have to go to Halifax, then that is fine with them.
The minister told an anecdote or two about his own riding. I heard of a case last week of a woman flying on an Air Canada flight from Ottawa to Charlottetown who passed out on the airplane. One of the stewardesses is a friend of mine and told me that when the crew revived her, she said that she had come to Ottawa to have an abortion, she could not afford to stay overnight in a hotel here in Ottawa the way the doctor told her to do, so she headed back and she passed out on the airplane. That is fine for the Minister of Justice, I gather.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I object to that.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: He says that if the Government of Prince Edward Island-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Jeez, you're sleazy. That's a sleazy way to put it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This is exactly what the minister said. If the Government of Prince Edward Island decides that the women of Prince Edward Island should go to Halifax for an abortion, that is up to them. That is not the way we look at national health care in this country and we urge the government, we insist that the government find a method, and we can suggest many, of assuring not only that there is a framework about when abortions are legal, how to balance, as we argue they should, the rights of a woman and the emerging interests of the foetus, but also to establish equal access across this country, something
Government Orders
that must be done. Even from the point of view that I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court of Canada would enhance the constitutionality of this measure if it could be assured that not only the framework would be presented as the government has proposed, but that there would be equal access under it. The Morgentaler case discredited and condemned the earlier legislation partly because it did not provide equal access, even though the question of access under the Constitution, as I concede, is primarily a provincial matter.
I want to deal quickly with a few other points. This announcement by the government and this presentation of legislation is also deficient in failing to provide a family policy. Very often, the choice of an abortion for a woman from her personal point of view is no choice at all because of the pressures of economic necessity, the social conditions in our society, the absence of comprehensive day care and the absence of adequate support for single women with children.
It is not good enough for the government to talk about provincial responsibility in this matter. The Conservatives did not talk about provincial responsibility when they promised the day care program to the people of Canada. That is done within provincial jurisdiction under the spending program, but the Conservatives did not hesitate to announce that they would have comprehensive day care, that they would create hundreds of thousands of day care spaces across the country. Right after the election, it was not the Constitution that stopped them from doing it. They changed their minds and did not do it.
The introduction of a program on limitations on abortion has to recognize this fundamental fact. If as the Minister of Justice said in his remarks, the decision for an abortion does not belong to a woman alone because a woman's rights and interests are balanced with the state's interests in the protection of the foetus, if the state has an interest in protecting the foetus, it cannot put the whole burden of bearing the child and looking after the child on the woman or on the provincial governments to decide what level of programs they want to have. There is a larger national responsibility there.
If it is fair to have restrictions on the right of abortion-and I am not arguing against that-it is also necessary to offer programs and real support for women who decide to carry the child and make the decision to proceed with the birth and raising the child. Much more

November 7, 1989
needs to be offered to make this fair legislation on the side of a family policy which will really help women.
I heard it put very well a few weeks ago by someone who was noting the tremendous evolution of the rights of women. They are far from being equal, but a tremendous evolution has taken place over the last few years in which women have more and more opportunities for jobs and for employment outside the home. Then this person said, "Isn't it time that we tried to improve the working conditions of parenting?" It is time that we tried to improve the working conditions of parenting.
It is a fundamental responsibility of the government, when introducing abortion legislation, restrictions on abortion which in principle we support, to have family programs accompany them, measures to improve the working conditions of parenting, to put it in a phrase that I think is particularly apt.
In conclusion, I want to address the free vote aspect of this issue. This is a free vote, and a number of members characterized their approach to this as a vote on the basis of their conscience. I want to at least give those members who argue that their consciences are the sole determinant of what their vote is going to be something to think about.
In a pluralistic and multicultural society like Canada, there is a larger perspective on national issues than one's own conscience. One cannot vote against one's conscience but I submit that in a pluralistic society, one should seek to find a position which reflects not only his own conscience as a member of Parliament but the consciences of the people who support that member and have voted for him or voted against him, but from whose constituency he has come to Ottawa to vote.
I mentioned at the outset an ethical position opposed to abortion and an ethical position in favour of a free choice on abortion in the interests of family planning. Those are both moral and ethical positions. I think what needs to be done is to find a framework, to find legislation which reflects the morality of Canadian society as a whole.
Whether those who strenuously oppose abortion in all circumstances can control enough of the votes in the House of Commons to determine the legislation or not, they should not do so. They should vote in a way, in my submission, which reflects the cross-spectrum of ethical positions which are held on this very important question of life and of children.
It is not an easy balance to strike, but I suggest that this legislation does not even attempt to do it. This legislation, far from trying to reflect the morality of Canadian society, basically tries to bypass it, tries to find a way that by putting water in the wine of both sides, the two sides can live with the legislation. Is that really good enough? Is there not right in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada the outline of a position which reflects the strong view that a woman's health and liberty requires that she have the decision-making power but at the same time recognizes the emerging interests of the foetus and invites the Parliament of Canada to come to grips with that, to define it and to give it legislative sanction? That is not done by this legislation. While, as I indicated at the outset-

on our side, we intend to consider the matter in caucus. Since our basic position is that this is a free vote, we will consider the matter, and the government will have our reply before the vote is taken.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find there is unanimous consent in the House to call it 1.21 p.m. in order to allow the hon. member for New Westminster- Burnaby, who is the lead speaker for the New Democratic Party, to start her speech after question period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1.21 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.14 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
November 7, 1989

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, several Sikh temples in Toronto and elsewhere in Canada this weekend are commemorating the anniversary of the Guru Nanok, the founder of Sikhism.
By his very example, the Guru Nanok taught pacifism, tolerance, respect for others, co-operation, discipline and moderation; qualities I am sure that hon. members will agree are the hallmark of progressive, enlightened civilizations. Born into a world of strife; religious, racial and class antagonism; political and gender discrimination; the Guru Nanok sought to establish harmony and community among adherents of perceived rival religious groups.
He worked for equality among classes and between men and women, preferring to see individuals emerge by dint of unbridled energy and natural talent and driven by altruistic duty to community.
The Canadian community is enriched by the disciples to this monotheistic creed and welcomes their contribution and role to the development of our great nation.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to point out the environmental leadership shown by Les Teintureries Elite Ltee of Drummondville. This company has just taken some concrete action by starting to build a waste water pre-treatment plant.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first textile mill in Quebec to acquire such a system.
Furthermore, they will receive no government subsidies for this project costing over one million dollars.
By acquiring the necessary equipment to treat its waste water before discharging it, this company is helping to protect the local environment and clean up our rivers and streams.
I am proud of the initiative shown by this family business which employs over 160 people and of its main spokesman, Lucien Morissette, for his role in preserving our environment. I trust that others will follow his example.


LOW LEVEL FLIGHTS
Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is not only stalling on the Innu Labrador land claims, and also those in Quebec, but is trying to drive the Innu off the land before there is a decision. The caribou and other game are being chased away by low level flights. The Innu children are being terrified so they are unwilling to stay on the land.
The government claims that there are no permanent residents when it knows there are at least 1,500 who spend half the year or more there following their ancestral way of life and protecting their children from urban destruction.
They say, "Tell us where you are camped and we'll avoid you", but when the Innu tell them they do not avoid them because they use the same river valleys that the Innu use. When the commanding officer visited them the planes overflew them the next week.
The government has now published an environmental impact study that does not even give the location of the proposed bombing ranges which it claims are environmentally harmless.
The government spent $6 million on this study and is trying to prevent members of Parliament and Innu support groups from getting copies of it. There is no reading station for this study for all the people east of Montreal and the translation into the Innu language is being delayed although that is the most important language to be used in the study by the people who live there.
I call on the government to give at least $.25 million to the Innu study of this environmental impact statement so that it will be a little bit more fair than it has been.

5. O. 31 FORESTRY


Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: Mr. Speaker, Alberta must diversify its economy. One way to do this is to maximize the economic potential of our forestry sector. In Alberta a successful pulp and paper industry will create as many jobs as the energy boom of the 1970s.
While this economic growth is valuable, it is also important to recognize that our natural environment is limited in its capacity to sustain this growth. Both our economy and our environment are important. Recent announcements by industry have demonstrated its commitment to responsible development through investments in new environmental technology. This is a positive step.
Our challenge is to find a balance between greatly needed economic growth and responsible and reasonable consideration for the protection of our environment. Let's work together to support the concept of sustainable economic development. Let's work together to build a better future for our children. Let's work together for a better Canada.


MR. HAROLD MILLER
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Newfoundlander. On November 6, 1987, on a dark stormy night in the Atlantic, a crew member of the vessel Atlantic Elizabeth fell overboard, lost consciousness and was only saved from drowning by a shipmate who, at great risk to his own life, recovered the drowning sailor in heavy seas.
Nine years previously, on November 20, the Danish trawler Remoy, with a ship's company of 12, ran aground in Labrador on a dark stormy night with winds at 100 kilometres an hour and a temperature of minus 23 degrees centigrade. Three men voluteered to go to their rescue and through a death-defying feat of seamanship and courage they successfully and miraculously achieved the rescue in less than 12 hours after the Remoy ran aground.
One of the three brave men involved in this incident was the man who also rescued his drowning crew
member nine years ago. Mr. Speaker, I speak of Mr. Harold Miller of Burgoyne's Cove in my riding. He was awarded the Cross of Valour for his 1978 incredible act of bravery at the age of 22 years, and for his 1986 repeated act of courage he was awarded the Medal of Bravery.
Nine hundred and fifty-eight people have received the Medal of Bravery. Fifteen people have been awarded the Cross of Valour. Mr. Miller is the only Canadian who has the extraordinary distinction of having been awarded both.
I am proud to have Mr. Miller as a constituent. On behalf of all Canadians I thank him and I would ask that my colleagues on all sides of the House join me in extending our congratulations to him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


KOREAN WAR
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's participation in the First and Second World Wars has been well documented by our own Department of Veterans Affairs and by the private film companies across Canada.
Until now not very much has been produced on our country's participation in the Korean War between 1950 and 1953. As a matter of fact, within only the past few years we were all referring to that war as the "Korean conflict".
Today that has all changed. Our Korean veterans are Canada's youngest veterans and, thanks to the War Amputations of Canada and its chief executive officer, Mr. Chadderton, we now have the latest of their "Never Again" series of films called "Korea-Canada's Forgotten War".
This film shows viewers of the battle areas and the monuments to those who died in Korea. These are all part of our nation's history and, I am sorry to say, a war that up until now Canadians knew very little about.
This film, along with others produced by the War Amputations of Canada, expresses to all Canadians the thought on our minds during this particular time of the year: "In a war everyone suffers. We must never let it happen again."
November 7, 1989

This film will be shown on television across Canada on November 11. I urge all members and all Canadians to watch it in their homes with their families.


PAY EQUITY PROGRAM
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, a study released yesterday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives shows that even though women make up fully 73 per cent of the bank's full-time workforce, women in banking make only 56 cents for every dollar earned by male bank employees.
This government claims to care about employment equity and fair employment practices for women, yet it neglects to apply these principles to disadvantaged women under its own jurisdiction.
Pay equity is an essential component of any employment equity program. Four provincial jurisdictions already have pay equity programs while the federal government fails to act.
A number of groups working for equality, like NAC and the Employment Equity Coalition, have urged the government to amend its broadly flawed Employment Equity Act to include pay equity measures. They also urge the government to amend the legislation to include targets and timetables and an effective enforcement mechanism.
On their behalf I call on this government to amend the Employment Equity Act as soon as possible in order to give the women of Canada fair wages for their work.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the residents of northern Nova Scotia have been fighting for a long time to get Nova Scotia CBC television reception for their area. Currently only New Brunswick and P.E.I. signals reach this area, leaving northern Nova Scotia out of the mainstream of Nova Scotia business and provincial news broadcasts.
At a recent parliamentary committee the new chairman of the CRTC, Mr. Keith Spicer, agreed to research this problem to see if there was any solution. For many years the people of this area have been making the same request of the CBC and it is time the question was resolved.
I urge the new chairman to support this ongoing request for equal coverage. I appreciate his efforts to resolve the problem and look forward to a positive conclusion.


PAY EQUITY PROGRAM
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to express great disappointment in the state of gender equality in this country. As far as ending the wage gap between men and women is concerned, we still have a great deal of work ahead of us.
A study published today points out that women employed in Canadian banks make only 56 cents for every dollar paid to male employees. While women outnumber male bank workers 70 to one, there are virtually no women in banks' upper management.
The dinosaur of inequality is alive and well and thriving in Canada. In fact we can see that our efforts to eradicate the wage gap have been unsuccessful in far too many sectors. Unquestionably banks are simply a symptom of a much wider problem.
I challenge this government to examine the findings of this study to see where it has gone wrong, to address the problems of unfair employment practices in all sectors, but most particularly in the area of wage parity and wage equity, and finally put the dinosaur of discrimination to rest for good.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, modem chiropractic is the third largest primary contact health care profession in North America. The Canadian Chiropractic Association represents 2,600 practising chiropractors and each province has a representative association. The Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College in Toronto is fully accredited to international standards and has a combined enrolment of about 600.
Chiropractors pioneered the holistic approach to health care. They focus on the spine in relation to the total body and specialize in the understanding and treatment of its component bone structures, muscles and nerves. As partners in health care, they employ specialized diagnosis and support research into causes and treatment of back pain. Chiropractic is cost effective. Chiropractors are now recognized as prime contact

November 7, 1989
Speaker's Ruling
practitioners and play an integrated part in comprehensive health services.


TAX BENEFITS FOR NORTHERN AREAS
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, on October 27 the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas was made public. At the request of the Minister of Finance, its mandate was changed in mid-term from revenue neutral to a deficit cutting measure.
If the recommendations are implemented as proposed it would mean the loss of $150 million in revenue for northern Canada and $5 million for 75 towns in northern Ontario, not to mention those that should have qualified in the first place.
I strongly urge the minister to totally ignore the recommendations of the committee, as it would create financial hardships in areas which are already underserviced. It would be a terrible blow to the morale of northern Ontarians who wholeheartedly strive to improve the quality of life in remote areas.
Moreover, we should be compensated for our efforts to bring prosperity in developing the natural resources which indeed do supply southern Ontario and the rest of Canada with forestry and mining products.


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the western diversification program is helping entrepreneurs in western Canada. Last Friday I was privileged to officially announce, not grants but repayable contributions for four projects in the Red Deer area. All four of these projects are commendable, all will provide employment and improve or expand available services. One deserves special mention.
Every municipality in Canada should be aware that a Red Deer company has the North American rights for a process marketed under the name of Bomego-Dano. This process will take municipal waste; garbage and sewage, and treat it, recycle metals and glass and convert the bulk of the remainder to marketable humus material.
The need for large, wasteful landfill areas can be dramatically reduced.
All politicians talk of the environment. Here is a process to do something to improve it and the western diversification program is helping.
* He *


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Agriculture released the government's white paper on agricultural policy. While the white paper is said to be for discussion only and not an indication of government policy, farmers will nonetheless be disappointed.
The biggest problem faced by the agricultural industry at the moment is farm debt. Billions of dollars are owed by Canadian farmers at a time of low prices, drought and unfair competition in the vital export market. Despite these facts, the white paper has virtually nothing to say about how the government intends to lead the effort to solve the farm debt crisis.
The Farm Credit Corporation holds hundreds of thousands of acres of Saskatchewan farm land. The Farm Credit Corporation policy continues to drive many farm families off their farms. Surely farmers and all Canadians deserve to know what the government intends to do to stabilize farm land ownership. Is it the government's intention to continue to sit idly by while the Farm Credit Corporation and other financial institutions force countless farm families to lose their livelihoods and their homes?
He * He


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would ask the indulgence of the House to render a decision on the matter raised yesterday by the hon. member for York Centre relating to the sub judice convention. I realize that this is an unusual time of the day but my decision will, in any case, impact on Question Period and I believe I should inform the House before the Question Period begins.
I should also advise that whatever time is taken to give this ruling will be extended and the Question Period will be the usual 45 minutes in length.

Yesterday the hon. member for York Centre rose to ask a question which was based on statements made by a staff sergeant of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in a court of criminal law relating to the budget leak of April, 1989.1 said at the time that I appreciated the courtesy of the hon. member for York Centre in advising the Chair that he was going to rise on the question, and as hon. members will remember, I decided that it was not appropriate to proceed at that time. I expressed reservations because the matter was before a court of justice and the hon. member and others agreed to pursue a point of order after Question Period and present their argument that the sub judice convention should not apply in this particular case. I want to thank again the hon. member for York Centre and others for their co-operation on this delicate but important question.
I should first explain the issue that is of concern to the hon. member so that all hon. members and the public will fully understand the context in which this matter arises. It is alleged by the hon. member for York Centre that according to a sworn statement by a witness in a court of criminal law to the effect that the independent responsibility of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to lay charges in criminal cases has been interfered with and the hon. member for York Centre wished to put questions to the Solicitor General and wished to have the Solicitor General answer to that specific allegation.
Against this desire to enquire further, the hon. member is confronted by the convention of this House that, and I quote: "Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts". I might emphasize that that is much more severely applied in the question of a criminal trial. The reason for this convention is to protect those persons who are undergoing trial and stand to be affected by whatever the outcome of the trial is. I point out that it is also because the trial may be affected by an exchange of debate in this place.
Yesterday the hon. member for York Centre argued that the convention should be suspended because the process by which charges were laid is, and I quote the hon. member, "not material to the criminal case now proceeding".
Speaker's Ruling

The Chair has also heard the arguments of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Lewis). The Hon. Members for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and Churchill (Mr. Murphy), as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, also expressed their opinion on this subject.
I have now since yesterday, reviewed all of the comments offered. I have also reviewed the transcript of the court proceedings, at least up until, I take it, close of court yesterday. My research delved into all of the precedents referred to in citation 336 of Beauchesne's fifth edition and also the report of the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members tabled in the House on April 29, 1977, which commented at length on the sub judice convention. I point out that while that report was submitted to the House it was never adopted by the House, but I have read the report in its entirety and most of the appendices attached thereto.
The precedents and rulings found in citation 336 of Beauchesne are very convincing. My predecessors, in cases of criminal proceedings, have applied the convention consistently. The British practice which was referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is based on a very specific resolution adopted by the British House of Commons on July 23, 1963. That resolution in the British House gives their Speaker clear guidelines and specific authority. The Canadian House has never pronounced itself in such clear terms and I say to the hon. member for York Centre that I realize that he was recognizing that fact, at least to some degree, in his argument yesterday.
The committee did, however, comment on the role of the Speaker at page 1.11 of its report tabled in the House on April 29, 1977. It said:
Your committee has given consideration to the role of the Speaker in the application of the convention. It is submitted that while there can be no substitute for the discretion of the Chair in the last resort, all Members of the House should share the responsibility of exercising restraint when it seems called for.

November 7, 1989
Speaker's Ruling
Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 339, comments on this part of the report and adds that the Speaker should remain the final arbiter.
In the present criminal case of Regina v. Normand Belisle, John Appleby and Douglas Small the defence has put forward a motion for an order staying all proceedings, claiming that there has been an abuse of process. I repeat, the defence has put forward this motion.
A witness has been heard, or at least partially heard, and that specific matter as to what that witness testified and what flows from it has yet to be decided by the court. This obviously is an important step for the defence with considerable consequences for the accused, whatever the court may eventually decide. The issue the hon. member and other hon. members wish to raise in the House is the same issue the court is seized of and which that court must decide.
However, the hon. member for York Centre and others wish to raise the matter in questions to the Solicitor General. The Chair has some difficulty in accepting the argument of the hon. member for York Centre that such questions would not be material to the criminal proceedings under way where, as I have remarked, the present testimony is in support of a defence motion.
As a consequence, the Chair is unable to accept the argument that somehow the proceedings in this criminal trial can be split into that part to which the convention of sub judice applies and another part where it does not apply.
There is no doubt that the House has a fundamental right to consider matters of public interest, but by our convention on matters before the courts the Chair has the duty to balance that legitimate right of the House with the rights and interests of the ordinary citizen undergoing the trial.
Therefore, after reflection on the matter and in the light of the decisions taken by previous Speakers, I have decided that the sub judice convention should apply in this case for the time being. The hon. member for York Centre will have further opportunities to pursue any related issues he may wish, and I include along with the hon. member for York Centre other hon. members, when the trial is over.
I will also take this opportunity to rule on the question of privilege raised earlier this morning by the hon. member for Oshawa. The hon. member claimed that the evidence given at the criminal trial yesterday by Staff Sergeant Jordan of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is at variance with evidence given by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police before the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General in June of this year. Consequently, it was argued that there has been a contempt of this House, or that a contempt of this House may have occurred.
I listened carefully to the arguments that were made and I reserved because the matter appeared on the surface to be linked to the point of order on which I have just ruled. On reflection, however, and in keeping with the House practice, I must find that there is no prima facie evidence of a contempt. There appears to be a discrepancy with respect to certain things that were said in two different places, but it is clearly up to the standing committee to pursue this matter if it so chooses. The committee is the competent body to review evidence given before it and should report to the House if it finds any breach of its authority. I must say to the hon. member for Oshawa that it would at least be premature for the Chair to rule now on this matter.

These matters are important and often very complex. They are sometimes even difficult for the Chair.
I wish to again express my gratitude to the Hon. Members concerned for their cooperation and then-patience.

I also want to express my appreciation for the very helpful and dignified way these arguments were brought to the Chair both yesterday and today. I think we also appreciate the very hard work which was done by our Table Officers last night and early this morning in order to assist the Chair to be able to return and give this ruling as expeditiously as possible.
It may well be that, given the fact that there was a committee report in 1977, hon. members will want to look at this matter further. I, of course, invite them to do so and in that respect I am very much the servant of this place.
November 7, 1989


Mr. Tbrner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, we have noted your judgment and the words for the time being and we reserve our right, of course, to pursue this matter when the judgment is rendered by the court on the issue of political interference with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and concerns the activities of the Senator Michel Cogger, who just stated in the Senate that he wants his inquiry before the Senate postponed until there has been a police investigation.
My question does not concern the operations that attracted the attention of the RCMP last week but a case of which the RCMP and the government have been aware since last January.
Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of a bill for $110,000 and dated February 1, 1988, sent by Senator Cogger to a company called GigaMos. According to the bill, this amount was in payment for, and I quote: "General, corporate and governement relations consulting fees from December 1986 to date, including more specifically: intensive representations-numerous telephone conversations, meetings and discussions with, among other people, Charles McMillan, adviser, and Bernard A. Roy, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada".
Could the Solicitor General inform the House whether the RCMP, which has been aware of this matter for ten months, has conducted an investigation to find out whether Senator Cogger violated the provisions of Section 124 of the Criminal Code, and if so, what the results were of this investigation?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member ought to know that it is not customary for the Solicitor General, whoever he may be, to comment on investigations that may or may not have been conducted by the RCMP. I think we should respect the work done by the RCMP and let them do their job.
Oral Questions
If the Hon. Member has any charges to make of any comments, he should go to the RCMP himself and give them the facts that were brought to his attention.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the Solicitor General should take a look at this bill for services rendered by the senator and draw his own conclusions. In any case,-

I want to put a question to the Prime Minister. We are talking about the way in which the Prime Minister's office deals with the senator who just happens to be a law school friend of the Prime Minister and who was his leadership campaign chairman and co-chairman of the 1988 campaign.
I want to know from the Prime Minister whether he was made aware at that time that Senator Cogger was lobbying his principal secretary on behalf of GigaMos Corporation, and whether the Prime Minister was aware that Senator Cogger intended, and later submitted a bill, to GigaMos Corporation for $110,000?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this information came to light during the course of the last year. It was made public many months ago, during the course of a civil trial in Montreal. It was commented upon by the principals at the time. There was a list of witnesses who were called or were to have been called. A judgment has already been rendered by the superior court of Quebec.
I think that the matter has been disposed of, but if there is an appeal, so be it.


John Napier Turner: The senator was not party to that action. He was involved by way of evidence introduced in that action, which was a civil action.
I am talking about the way that the Prime Minister deals with a senator who just happens to be a long-time friend and a long-time political associate. Can we have the assurance of the Prime Minister that he will advise the House of whether he was made aware of the entreaties and lobbying of Senator Cogger with his principal secretary, for a fee? Can we have the assurance of the Prime Minister that in relation to matters currently under investigation by the RCMP concerning Senator Cogger-and we have not been able to obtain from the Solicitor General whether the events of 10 months ago were ever investigated-in the current context that

Oral Questions
RCMP officers conducting the investigation will not be subjected to political pressure from the government?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has already responded that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is quite properly initiating its own inquiry into this matter and, no doubt, will do whatever it deems appropriate, as it always does in the course of these matters-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nunziata:: Depending on who the defendant is.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Only the Liberals would suggest that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been manipulated for partisan purposes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Only a Liberal would suggest that. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I think I could be certain of one thing. I will take the reputation for independence and incorruptibility of the RCMP above the Liberal Party 10 times out of 10.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question about the damage control program relating to Senator Cogger.
The Prime Minister will be aware of Senator Cogger's statement made in the other place earlier today. Yet on November 3, while the Prime Minister was fully aware that an RCMP investigation was going on into the activities of Senator Cogger, the Prime Minister said the following: "An allegation has been made against him"- that is the senator-"and he has denied it. Not only has he denied it, he has invited the Senate to examine his conduct. What could be more forthcoming than that? I think it is the proper way to proceed".
In light of the Prime Minister's feeling that a Senate inquiry was the proper way to proceed while the RCMP was doing its work, I would like to ask him what has changed. Why is it that the senator is no longer prepared, or in favour, of having the inquiry which was considered the proper way to proceed three days ago?


Mr. Epp:: That is not what he said.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is not what the senator said at all. Moreover, my friend says that the senator invited the Senate to examine his conduct, which he did. I thought that was an entirely appropriate thing to do.
The senator has advised the public that subsequent to his request for this kind of an inquiry he was informed via the Solicitor General in the House that the RCMP was going to conduct an independent investigation. As I read the senator's statement today, all he is saying is inasmuch as the RCMP has decided to initiate its own independent investigation, let it pursue that investigation to its end and hold in abeyance the Senate inquiry until such time as the RCMP has reported.
What could be more forthcoming and more objectively honest than that?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister then tell the House what he knows about the RCMP investigation that we do not?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know a single thing about the RCMP investigation, except for the fact that one was acknowledged by the Solicitor General. All I know is that the RCMP-


Mr. Boudria:: You just said there was one.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to give an answer to an important question. I have been asked the question; I have responded to it fully. The Opposition asks important questions that could have damaging effects on members' reputations. They presume not innocence, but guilt. When I rise, pursuant to their request, to re-establish the facts, they try to shout me down. That is a denial of justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries concerning the announcement yesterday that Canada would accept the ruling of the binational panel on west coast salmon and herring.
On October 23, the Minister for International Trade stated in the House that financial compensation to the Americans is "an option that is being looked at". This is
November 7, 1989

the route that both the industry workers and the fisheries council in British Columbia have agreed is the only acceptable response to the decision of the panel on west coast salmon and herring. Has the minister eliminated this option as a way of complying with the ruling?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I believe my statement, made jointly with the Minister for International Trade yesterday, speaks for itself.
Canada is assured that the findings of the free trade panel, the first one commissioned under the historic free trade agreement, can be supported by Canada because we are satisfied that our conservation and management requirements will be met, while permitting some small part of the Pacific salmon or herring catch to be exported only on conditions equivalent to those we require to manage all fish landed in the west coast fisheries.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, according to press reports yesterday the government has accepted the free trade panel's decision ensuring American exploitation of our fishery resource. Will the minister explain how he could reach such a decision, given the fact that there is no implementation plan in place? How does the minister plan to monitor the repercussions of this ludicrous decision?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, this is an important question. Canada will ensure the integrity of our management system to properly conserve this important Canadian resource.
If the hon. member would read, I believe it is, section 718 of the panel report, he would find that the panel gives Canada broad latitude within which to establish a range of management measures to ensure that fish caught in Canada will be counted by Canadians in a fail-safe way before being exported.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not say how he is going to count the ones that are being exported.
The minister and his colleague, the Minister for International Trade, have said repeatedly that no jobs- and this is a direct quotation from this minister-"histor-
Oral Questions
ically established" would be lost as a result of any decision under the GATT or the free trade agreement.
Will the minister now guarantee to this House, and to industry workers concerned, that no Canadian fish processing jobs will be lost as a result of his government's cave-in to the U.S.?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party continue to promote the myth that this set of management requirements has something to do with protecting jobs. That matter was resolved many months ago when Canada accepted a GATT panel's finding that we had to play by the rules of international trade if we wished to trade in the international market-place.
I can assure the hon. member that in the five years this government has been in office there have been year over year more processing jobs in the Pacific coast fishing industry than in each previous year. In an era of liberalized trade where we will have access to more foreign markets, not less, by playing by the rules of international trade, there will indeed be increasing employment in British Columbia for fishermen and process workers.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of Her Excellency Corazon Aquino, President of the Republic of the Philippines.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to address my question to the Minister of Fisheries and say to him first that he has nothing but a record of negligence and surrender in defending the interests of the fishing industry of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member feels very strongly about this, but he seems to be going a little bit beyond an appropriate preamble. Perhaps the hon. member could put his question.

Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let me put a question to this minister, so-called.
The fact of the matter is that he has now surrendered the sovereign right of Canada to manage its own resource.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the hon. member to put his question.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is too bad
their brain power does not match their voice level.
Mr. Speaker, the question to the hon. minister is this. In this case, can the minister tell us, now that the precedent has been set and we have lost control over the management of that vital resource, how we are going to protect the interest of the east coast fishery, which is now vulnerable under Article 1205 of the free trade agreement and will now be subject to the same attack by the Americans to take away the right of Canadians to preserve, conserve, and process their fish on their own shores?


Thomas Edward Siddon: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is rather strange the hon. member would talk about negligence when he has neglected to concede that Canada has been a big victor, that we have realized great gains as a result of the free trade agreement with tens of thousands of jobs being created in Canada. I think he should begin to tell Canadians the truth in that respect. Tens of thousands of new jobs have been created in western Canada as a result of the free trade agreement.
Had the hon. member read the free trade panel report, and if he had consulted Section 716 in particular very carefully, he would have realized that Canada has sacrificed nothing in regard to our sovereign right to manage our fish stocks, and that prerogative remains solely with the Government of Canada and with the Minister of Fisheries, as reflected in the free trade panel report.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, while we are dealing with the question of that
Minister's negligence, I would like to ask the Prime Minister about another serious omission by one of his ministers.
This morning Mr. Halliday, the chief negotiator on the subsidy rounds of negotiations under the FTA, admitted that he has received no instructions whatsoever from the Minister for International Trade indicating what subjects should or should not be negotiated by Canada. In other words, everything is up for grabs-regional programs, our agricultural programs, our health programs, our social programs. They are all subject to the negotiation because we have a negligent minister not giving instructions.
Will the Prime Minister forthwith take action to correct that serious omission, issue guidelines clearly indicating what the guidelines are for our chief negotiator and state today in the House that the crucial programs affecting regional development, agriculture, unemployment insurance and social programs will not be negotiated in this round of the free trade deal?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): We have all learned long ago, Mr. Speaker, that when the hon. member has nothing to say he engages in abuse. He is now seeking to abuse a public servant who appeared before the committee. The public servant made it quite clear in his testimony to that committee that we are in a very preliminary stage of discussion with the United States, that there will not be the beginning of those kinds of bilateral discussions until the conclusion of the MTN round. The hon. member knows that. If he would pay more attention to the facts and less time trying to create false fears in the country, we would all be better served.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: My question is for the
Minister of Agriculture. Press reports indicate that Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, the chairman of an important trade committee in the United States Congress, has asked the International Trade Commission to gather data on subsidies paid to Canadian Durum wheat producers. Surely, this constitutes harassment by the United States administration and Congress.

What action is the Minister going to take to respond and take action to stop this harassment by the United States Congress and administration? He brought out a paper this morning entitled Growing Together. He did not reveal how he was going to stop this harassment by the United States government.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, under the U.S. trade law they have the right to examine these kinds of issues. Canada is very confident that the results of that investigation will clearly demonstrate that U.S. producers are subsidized to a greater extent than Canadian producers. That has been confirmed under the free trade agreement and ratified both by the Secretary of Agriculture and myself.


Maurice Brydon Foster: When the free trade deal passed the House of Commons, the government turned down an amendment which would have given Canadian agriculture producers and other producers in this country the same kind of tools that the United States administration and producers have. That is to say, they could have a government agency like the International Trade Commission gather data and monitor exports so as to harass them.
Is the Minister willing to take action or bring in similar legislation to that provided to the United States producers where they can simply ask a government agency to start to gather information and to monitor a situation so as to harass those producers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I find it incredible. I do not know what this member has against success. If he looked at page 28 of Growing Together, he would find that the United States is now one of the top five agriculture markets that Canada has. That is the record that we have and that is going to continue. It is being augmented by the free trade agreement. Why does he want to condemn our best customer?


THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 1988, some very
Oral Questions
serious charges of influence peddling were brought against the former Member for Chambly, Mr. Richard Grise. However, search warrants were not issued until November 21, several months later. Considering very serious charges of political interference in a recent case, I would now like to ask the Solicitor General whether he could inform the House today about the reasons for postponing action until November 21, in a case of that magnitude.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that despite statements that were made earlier, the RCMP is an honourable police force that acts without political interference. I would like to refer to what the RCMP Commissioner said himself in June before a committee of this House. He was very emphatic about this. And I believe that in order to protect the integrity of this police force, we must let them do their job and conduct their investigation as they see fit, with the utmost integrity. That is how a police force should founction in a country like Canada.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. We in this country want to allow the RCMP to do their job without political interference. That is the purpose of this motion, without suggestions that charges were a fragile construction to bring about prosecution.
My supplementary question is this. In light of the very, very grave concerns that have been raised recently with respect to possible political interference in the operations of the RCMP, I want to ask the Solicitor General whether he is prepared to review the record in the case of Richard Grise and to very carefully examine why there was a delay from the summer of 1988 until November 21, the day of the election before search warrants were issued. Will he assure that there was no political interference?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see why the Hon. Member chooses to ignore what the RCMP Commissioner said. The Commissioner is not just anyone. He is in charge of RCMP operations. Does the Hon. Member refuse to believe the RCMP Commissioner when he says before a committee of this House that there is absolutely no interference? Well, I do believe the Commissioner when he says that.

November 7, 1989
Oral Questions
[.English\


AGRICULTURE
Brian White: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. This morning the minister released a discussion paper entitled Growing Together which was described as the most comprehensive agriculture review ever undertaken in Canada.
It is fine to speak of change, but the farmers of Canada need to know that the government is truly committed to a new agricultural policy. How does the minister now intend to proceed in translating the principles of this report into much needed agricultural programs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what has been tabled today is the beginning of a process and not the end of a process. It is inviting all stakeholders in the agriculture and agri-food industry to participate and work together to develop some solutions to some very important issues that confront agriculture, not only today, but indeed in the future. We have changes in the global trading community. We have changing consumer demands, changing emphasis on food safety and environmental considerations, and the need for adequate safety net systems. What is proposed here is a national agricultural conference which will take place in Ottawa on December 11 and 12. At this time all stakeholders will meet to review some of the very important issues that are outlined in this document.
Together we can build a stronger, more durable and more vibrant agricultural industry.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Recently, the chairman of the finance committee, the member for Mississauga South, wrote a letter in reference to the manufacturers' sales tax to a Mr. Conway in Point Claire, Quebec. It states:
You will appreciate that we have been stealing money from the consumers-with the federal sales tax. This year we will be stealing $17.3 billion without most people knowing about it.
Does the government agree with this characterization of the MST? If so, is it guilty of aiding and abetting, having raised the MST four times since 1984?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for drawing the attention of the House to one of the finer letters of the member-and one of the more moderate.
What I think the member was trying to say, perhaps in his own inimitable fashion, was that Canada is the only country with a manufacturers' sales tax, that there are 48 of our leading competitors who have the equivalent of the GST, and it is time we moved into the next century and got a GST rather than the old MST.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister accepts the vocabulary of the member for Mississauga South, I am sure he will accept his characterization of the GST. He stated:
We may have been gouging and screwing you. Now you know we are
gouging and screwing you.
Perhaps if some people know that they are being gouged and
screwed they will make less demands on government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I hope my mother isn't watching.


Mr. Speaker:: I think your mother hopes you will stop reading. .


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is this. Does he agree with this rather succinct and concise description of his government's economic policy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as my mother watches this I wouldn't even touch that with a ten-foot pole.
But I know my hon. friend from Lasalle-Emard will want to thank the member for Mississauga South for having provided him with some of his finer lines.
I think the very distinguished chairman of the finance committee of the House has been effective to the point where he has obscured some of the members of this cabinet, and that is pretty tough to do.

I think the member in his own inimitable fashion has been an outstanding member and chairman, but he expresses his enthusiasm in ways rather more vigorous and descriptive than some of us would like.


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that he has made the comment that the goods and services tax is in effect in some 45 countries around the world-


Some Hon. Members:: Forty-eight.


M. Douglas Young: I am just quoting the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, who said 45.


Some Hon. Members:: Forty-eight.


M. Douglas Young: My question is this. One of the countries that does not have a goods and services tax is the United States of America.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he can explain to us now why he is not prepared to withdraw this tax, in view of the fact that the 10 premiers he will be meeting over the next couple of days have already indicated their opposition to the tax, and in view of the fact that our major trading partner, the United States, has not seen fit to impose a goods and services tax?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is a sovereign nation and we impose the tax policies that we deem to be in Canada's national interest.
The fact that the United States does not have the tax does not impact in any way. The needs of Canada are entirely different. Our desire is to maintain the unique social programs, our regional development programs, medicare-all of the things on which we campaigned and were strongly re-elected. The GST will help us do that well into the next century. We want to do more for the people of Canada and this tax instrument is more modern, more effective and more just.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is important that we can say that the GST is in 48 other countries, but it does not matter whether the United States has it or not.
In view of the fact that we are dealing with economic matters at the First Ministers' Conference, and in view of the fact that the premiers across the country-if we are going to talk about the sovereignty of Canada-have all opposed the goods and services tax, will the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister indicate today to the House whether or not he is going to withdraw the proposal that is presently before the Standing Committee on Finance and allow for open and fruitful discussion at the economic meeting with the first ministers of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first, the member wants us run by the Americans, then he wants us run by the provinces. We will speak for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: His good friend and former colleague, the Premier of New Brunswick, said at the premiers' conference in Quebec City in August that it would be the height of irresponsibility if the premiers came together for a couple of days and failed to come up with an alternative to the goods and services tax; it would be extremely irresponsible if all they did was try and denigrate the federal initiative. Premier McKenna was absolutely right. All they did was denigrate the federal level. They came up with no alternative.
We have an alternative. We believe it is very much in Canada's interests. We are stopping the negative and destructive attitude of penalizing production in Canada, penalizing the creation of jobs and we are trying to make Canada a much more competitive nation. I know at the end of the day my distinguished colleague from New Brunswick will applaud the Government of Canada.


AGRICULTURE
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Honey producers in the riding of Elk Island depend on the tripartite stabilization program to ensure the success of their operations. While they realize that this program involves not only the federal government but also provincial governments, they are hoping for a payment fairly soon. These people are important.
When can the honey producers expect the payment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can advise my hon. colleague that there will be a payment made under the national tripartite stabilization program for honey. It will be in the equivalent of 8.8 cents a pound. The amount across the country will yield some $5 million, more or less. The cheques are in the process of being issued now, so he can

Oral Questions
deliver the good news to his constituents in Elk Island this afternoon or this weekend.


DRYDEN INQUIRY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Canadians have been watching with interest as the drama around the Dryden inquiry has unfolded during its first phase.
News reports now have it that Justice Moshansky is recommending that the Government of Canada revise its regulations on de-icing of commercial airplanes to make de-icing mandatory rather than being left to the discretion of the pilot who may be subject to undue pressure to be on time in order to keep the company schedule.
Does the minister agree with this proposal and, if so, when will these regulations come into effect?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Moshansky has not yet tabled his report, and I have not received a copy. When it will be done, I will consider the report and make it public. It is not a fact yet.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the minister should be aware, as most of us commute to Ottawa by plane are, that we are well into the icing season.
Regardless of whether or not he has received that recommendation specifically from the justice involved, will he take immediate steps to implement the concept of the recommendation and ensure that de-icing is mandatory, not something that is left to the whim of the pilot?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, when the report is tabled by Judge Moshansky and I receive the report, I will consider its recommendations, and as the government usually does in a case like this, we will act on those recommendations, and of course we cannot do so until we receive the report.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Today, mayors of the Quebec-Windsor corridor representing some 14 million Canadians who have shown that they want, need and use VIA Rail, appeared before the transportation committee. They told us that VIA Rail is part of the solution, not part of the problem to the transportation needs of this country.
If the minister does not wish to eliminate passenger rail service in this country, and if he does not want the public to see his Royal Commission on Transportation as simply performing an autopsy on VIA, will the minister cede to the mayors' common-sense request for an immediate moratorium on all cuts to VIA Rail until such time as the royal commission has presented its findings?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I met the mayors just before Question Period and it was interesting. They had three proposals. The first was to consider if the decision is made what we would do with the equipment. I said I would consider their proposal. The second was to deal with the royal commission and to have a voice at the royal commission and I gave the same answer. The third one was the moratorium. The moratorium represents $200 million and I told the mayors that I don't have that money.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, today we have been given reports that at this very moment VIA is preparing to sell off one-third of its passenger car fleet, some 260 cars. I am wondering how the minister can stand idly by and watch VIA rolling stock and the Canadian taxpayers' investment being squandered away.
Will the minister call upon VIA Rail to stop committing slow suicide today, and not sell off its cars until we know for sure whether or not we will need them?
Mr. Bouchard (Roberval) Mr. Speaker, if my friend would well understand what I said before, I said that it was one of the proposals made by the mayors. I said that I would get in touch with VIA Rail to see exactly where it
November 7, 1989

is on this subject. I said also that I would consider the proposal. I think that is the answer the member wants.


EAST GERMANY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration and it concerns the continuing mass exodus of East Germans to the West.
A month ago in the House in response to a question that I posed, the minister promised on a priority basis to deal with the German Canadian community in signing a master agreement through which to sponsor East Germans. On October 26 the minister, in a meeting with the Canadian German Congress, flatly refused this request.
Why has the government refused to support such a comprehensive group sponsorship package by the German Canadian community when it enjoys overwhelming support throughout Canada and when the community is prepared to take full responsibility for it?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when I met with the German Canadian Congress I expressed to them, as I would express in the House today, our interest in helping in any way we can with the situation of the East Germans who are leaving East Germany.
As the hon. member knows, these people automatically have citizenship in West Germany which is what most of them are seeking. We are prepared to help in any way we can. I have offered and discussed with the German Canadian Congress a master agreement to help bring East Germans here. We will pull out all the stops to help the Canadian German Congress and the East Germans who think they would like to live in Canada.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is I do not know where she is pulling out all the stops, because no one has seen the stops yet.
The minister has told the Canadian German Congress that she is only going to be interested in helping independent applications, which is no help because that is part of the criteria anyway. Given that previous governments in historical movements in eastern Europe, be it in Hungary, Poland or Czechoslovakia, have permitted thousands of migrants to come to Canada, why
Oral Questions
has her immigration policy completely ignored the historical movements going on in eastern Europe today, ignored the pleas and requests of the Canadian German community, and ignored and refused to be a relevant player in the unfolding drama in eastern Europe? Why, Madam Minister?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think that our government has been quite the reverse on the events that are going on in eastern Europe, whether it is in East Germany, Poland, Hungary or in other countries.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Prime Minister, and myself have all been very active in putting forward things that Canada can be doing to help. That includes immigration and it includes all of eastern Europe, not just East Germany.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture who tabled a document this morning outlining a review of Canadian agricultural policy that does not address the main problem facing rural Canada, notably unsustainable farm debt.
Why did the minister choose to ignore this growing problem, especially since the immediate impact of his market-driven policy paper that he advocates would make the debt problem even worse?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we have not overlooked the problem nor do we intend to in the future.
What is a fact is that farm arrears have been reduced this year over last year by 21 per cent. Farm bankruptcies have dropped by 41 per cent in 1989 versus 1984. So there is progress.
In September, we placed a moratorium on foreclosures. In January 1985, we put an $80 million, 4 per cent interest rate reduction program into effect. In 1985, we introduced shared risk mortgages. We established the Farm Debt Review Boards. Well over 6,000 accounts have been handled, 75 per cent successfully.

Business of the House
The commodity base loan program was brought in as well in 1986. In December, 1987, a total of $360 million was conveyed to the Farm Debt Review Board, again to assist this very serious problem.
In July, 1988, $400 million was plugged into the Farm Credit Corporation. We have a tremendous record and we will continue to do more in this regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, given that the Farm Credit Corporation is behaving more and more like the banks with more foreclosures thus creating more downward pressure on land prices which creates more foreclosures again because the debt to equity ratio goes down, can the minister explain why he supports the continuation of this kind of policy when it simply is not working?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a representation because it is obvious the NDP does not want the Farm Credit Corporation to be an instrument of farm policy. I will certainly take that into consideration.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties relating to government business for the remainder of this week. I think you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following arrangements. I move the following motion:
That, on Wednesday, November 8, the House, as its first order of business under Government Orders will resume second reading consideration of Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion; that at 6:00 o'clock p.m., this debate will be adjourned to another sitting day so that the House can then move to resume and complete third reading consideration of Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act; that any recorded divisions demanded to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-20 will be deferred automatically to 12:00 o'clock noon on Thursday, November 9, 1989 and that the hours of sitting for that day shall be extended by the amount of time taken for any such deferred division;
That, on Thursday, November 9, 1989, the hours of sitting and business of the House shall be as set out in the Standing Orders in relation to a Friday sitting day;
That Thursday, November 9, 1989, be designed an allotted day; and
That, when the House adjourns on Thursday, November 9,1989, it shall stand adjourned until 11.00 o'clock a.m., Monday, November 20, 1989.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I indeed can confirm that there have been negotiations and that we have agreed to the motion, but you can take the opposition's word that I do not think we have to put into the motion that Thursday, November 9, be designated an allotted day for a motion which shall not come to a vote. We would like to see that withdrawn from this motion. That it not come to a vote, Mr. Speaker, you can have my word and the word of this caucus, if it is our day, we will decide that.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to add another point to the very important point made by my colleague, the Chief Whip. It should be understood that the time taken for any division on Thursday noon must be added to the Opposition Day time. In other words, the time for the division should not reduce the time otherwise available for an Opposition Day.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this motion was agreed to by all three parties. Unfortunately, and this will not happen again, it is not initialled by all three parties. I agree to both the suggestions of my colleagues opposite.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis moves:
That, on Wednesday, November 8, 1989, the House, as its first order of business under Government Orders, will resume second reading consideration of Bill C-43, An Act respecting abortion; that at 6.00 o'clock p.m, this debate will be adjourned to another sitting day so that the House can then move to resume and complete third reading consideration of Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Excise Thx Act and the Excise Act; that any recorded divisions demanded to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-20 will be deferred automatically to 12.00 o'clock noon on Thursday, November 9,1989 and that the hours of sitting for that day shall be extended by the amount of time taken for any such deferred division;
That, on "Thursday, November 9, 1989, the hours of sitting and business of the House shall be as set out in the Standing Orders in relation to a Friday sitting day;
That Thursday, November 9, 1989, be designated an allotted day; and
That, when the House adjourns on Thursday, November 9, 1989, it shall stand adjourned until 11.00 o'clock a.m., Monday, November 20, 1989.
November 7, 1989

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-43, an Act respecting abortion, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-43. This is an act to recriminalize abortion.
I feel that this bill is the very height of government hypocrisy. The bill would jail medical doctors for two years for performing a medical service, unless vaguely defined health criteria enshrined in criminal law are met. Women are also liable for criminal penalties under Section 21 of the Criminal Code for aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime. Abortion under circumstances described by several Supreme Court justices as valid reasons to have an abortion will now be one such criminal offence.
I understand the pressure that the government is under. Some people have called for criminal legislation in this area. The Leader of the Official Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party, has called for criminal legislation in this area. Several ministers and backbenchers have called for criminalization on abortion.
Some think that this bill should be a free vote because they say that it is a matter of conscience for the members of this House of Commons to decide. I believe that it is a matter of conscience for each individual woman to decide, not for the members of this House.
The Minister of Justice in his justifications for this bill said this legislation would prevent people who are not doctors from performing an abortion. This is an example of the hypocrisy that I have spoken about.
Government Orders
The Criminal Code already deals with the performance of surgical procedures. No one can practise medicine in Canada without a licence. There already are penalties in the Criminal Code.
The Minister of Justice was quoted in The Globe and Mail on November 4 as saying that a deliberate decision was made to legislate by an amendment to the Criminal Code. Only by using the criminal law power can the federal government ensure a national approach to the question of abortion.
This bill does not provide a national approach to the issue. It allows provinces to pass restrictive laws to block access to abortion services just as we now see happening in the province of Nova Scotia. It does not set a national standard for accessibility.
The federal government sets standards for accessibility for other medical procedures through the Canada Health Act. The Minister of Justice cannot get away with saying that accessibility to health services is not a federal matter. The Canada Health Act is a federal statute that guarantees accessibility to medical services under threat of partial or complete withdrawal of federal funding for health care to the provinces. The Canada Health Act has already been used to guarantee that Canadians across this country could not be extra billed. The only national standard that this bill sets is the threat of criminal charges being brought against Canadian doctors for performing an abortion.
In the province of Prince Edward Island no abortion has been legally performed since 1982. Women from that province must go to Nova Scotia or another province to obtain an abortion. The Morgentaler clinic in Montreal has served women from as far away as Newfoundland. In Newfoundland there is only one doctor who is willing and allowed by a hospital board to perform abortions. When this doctor is ill or away on vacation no safe medical abortions are available in the province of Newfoundland.
Access to clinics in cities are physically blocked by protesters who harass women in an attempt to intimidate them. Women who have made probably the most difficult and the most agonizing personal decision of their lives are the targets of verbal abuse.
Those who say that there is already abortion on demand in Canada or that this law stands for something called abortion on demand are ignorant of the lengths that many Canadian women must go to to obtain an

November 7, 1989
Government Orders
abortion in this country. Even in provinces where access to abortion services are a lesser problem, we still see women forced to go to the United States. Not every woman in Canada lives in Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal. Rural women have a very difficult time finding access to abortion services. If the doctor closest to them refuses, the woman must search further and further until she finds a doctor who will.
There is a serious problem of access in Canada, a problem this government has chosen to intensify rather than to address. Under this new law, women will have to shop around for a doctor who will brave the threat of criminal sanctions. At this point some doctors do not seem to believe that they will be charged for performing such a medical service because it really does seem to be an unbelievable thing that they could be. But we have seen under the old abortion law that several doctors were criminally charged for performing abortions. We have already heard the threats of the anti-choice extremists to charge doctors under this new law. The threat of being charged may keep some doctors from performing abortions, and access to a very needed health service may, in fact, be diminished.
This bill, if passed into law, will open the floodgate to a series of third party interventions. Disgruntled ex-boyfriends may lay an information that would bring criminal charges against doctors, and an aiding and abetting charge against women; anti-choice hospital personnel could charge doctors. There is no end to the legal lengths a certain faction of the anti-choice movement will go.
In the United States, a woman who was terminally ill and pregnant, decided, along with her husband and with her doctor, to wait a further two weeks before undergoing a Caesarean section because she knew and her doctor knew that the foetus would have a better change of survival at a more advanced gestational age. A third party court intervention led a judge to order an immediate Caesarean section against this woman's will. The foetus died within two hours and the woman died two days later. Third party interventions rob women of their dignity and of the right to make a decision about their own future. This is based on religious and philosophical principles that most of the population here in Canada do not share. We must not hand a new legal tool to this
extreme faction of the anti-choice movement. We cannot stand idly by and let what is currently happening in the United States happen here in Canada.
I am concerned about the criminal aspect of the bill and its implications for third party interventions and access. I add to that my disagreement with the conditions that it imposes on women.
I have three children, and giving birth was a joyous experience for me. It has been my most fulfilling life experience. But I was fortunate. I have a supportive husband. We were ready and prepared to have children. We were able to provide for their care. It was my choice to become a mother. I know what pregnancy is, and I know what childbirth is. It is not easy, and it is not simple. It is simply not inconvenient as some MPs in this House would suggest.
Some women choose not to bear children. A woman who makes this decision is not frivolous. To say this negates the value of motherhood. Motherhood is not to be taken lightly. It is not to be entered into by mistake or by force. Motherhood is a serious responsibility. Women who choose not to undertake it are not frivolous. Women are people of integrity. Women make careful and thoughtful decisions based on their own personal circumstances that we here do not have the right or the ability to prejudge.
Many women each year still die in childbirth. The question is not whether the doctor alone believes the woman's health is likely to suffer because of a pregnancy, it must be the woman's choice whether or not she decides that she should have a child.
The Minister of Justice has been using the language of choice when discussing this bill. There is no choice for women involved in this bill. The minister is being hypocritical when he uses the language of choice in relation to this bill which makes abortion the doctor's decision based on health criteria, not the women's choice based on her own personal criteria.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Brian Dickson, said in the 1988 Morgentaler judgment, and I quote: "Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations is a profound interference with a woman's

body and thus a violation of security of the person". Chief Justice Dickson was not talking about meeting the state's health criteria to have an abortion. He did not say the woman should have to be measured against some standard that largely male politicians here will set up in order to have an abortion.
Madam Justice Bertha Wilson said that liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve the personal decisions made by its citizens. It does, however, require the state to respect them. The question then becomes whether the decision of a woman to terminate her pregnancy falls within this class of protected decisions. I have no doubt that it does. This decision is one that will have profound psychological, economic and social consequences for the pregnant woman. The circumstances giving rise to it can be complex and varied and there may be, and usually are, powerful considerations militating in opposite directions. It is a decision that deeply reflects the way the woman thinks about herself and her relationship to others and to society at large. It is not just a medical decision. It is a profound social and ethical one as well. The response to it will be the response of the whole person.
I would have hoped that in drafting this bill the conservative cabinet would have given more serious consideration to these words of wisdom. I believe if they had there would be no such bills in front of us today.
How far is this government going to take legislating state controls over a woman's body and personal decisions? What other aspects of women's personal lives are going to be left up to the state, the courts, and the medical profession to decide?
Canadians have varying moral, philosophical and religious beliefs about abortion. There is no reason for the state to impose what is, in fact, a minority moral belief about the equal status of the embryo or foetus upon all Canadian women. It is their own moral decision to make.
The church and the state are separate entities in modern Canadian society. They must remain separate. In Ireland and Brazil abortion is illegal, yet these two countries have a much higher abortion rate than we do here in Canada where abortion, prior to the passing of this bill, is still legal. The Minister of Justice said that this bill was not designed to reduce abortions. I do not understand this government. I do not understand why
Government Orders
any government would put a health service in the Criminal Code.
This bill does not reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. It does not improve access for women across Canada. What is this bill meant to accomplish? What is it meant to do? There seems to be only one answer to that question. It seems that it is meant to quell the call for federal action on abortion. This government will now be able to say that it has dealt with the difficult issue of abortion.
What we should all be working for is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in Canada. Bringing in restrictive legislation does not do this. Many people imagine that every sexually active person is completely knowledgeable about various methods of contraception, their effectiveness and the risks. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A 1987 Gallup poll showed that only 46 per cent of Canadians felt that they had adequate access to family planning information services. There was a great regional disparity in these findings, with only one-third of Atlantic Canadians reporting sufficient access to these services and to this information. Young people are at great risk of having misinformation about effective birth control and the risks of pregnancy. One 1986 Canadian study of teenagers has shown that only about one-half of sexually active teenagers always use contraception. The 1986 research discusses how one in six women in Ontario will become pregnant before she reaches the age of 20.
Only half the schools in Canada offered sex education in 1984. A 1982 study showed that only 57 per cent of medical doctors were prepared to provide teenagers with birth control resources. Planned Parenthood states that many parents do not feel prepared to provide thorough sexuality education for their children. Research indicates that the provision of reproductive health services and sex education reduce the number of teenage pregnancies.
According to a 1984 Gallup poll, 83 per cent of Canadians do support sex education in our schools, and half say the current level of school sex education is not adequate. Teenage women are not physically or emotionally prepared for pregnancy. Teenage mothers and their children experience a higher rate of mortality and of morbidity. It is cruel to deal with unwanted pregnancies simply by wrenching new born babies away from these

Government Orders
young women. The key, clearly, is prevention. Not enough is being done in this area.
In 1977 the family planning division at Health and Welfare Canada was disbanded. There is now only one full-time staff person in that huge department to work on family planning issues. Funding to Planned Parenthood was cut by $61,000 during this government's first mandate. In 1984, Planned Parenthood received $200,000 from the federal government, down from $447,000 in 1979. By 1988, Planned Parenthood was receiving only $139,000, a decrease of $61,000, not even taking inflation into account.
I questioned the Minister of National Health and Welfare about this in the House yesterday and he replied that Planned Parenthood funding had been increased for 1989 to $146,000. I am no mathematician, Mr. Speaker, and obviously the minister is not either, because this still represents a substantial long-term decrease in funding to Planned Parenthood of $54,000.
First the Liberals axed family planning, and then the Tories axed it, so that there is now an inadequate sum to address the desperate need for family planning education in this country. If this government were at all imaginative and serious about preventing unwanted pregnancies, it would consider the establishment of mobile family planning units that would visit schools and communities to disseminate birth control and sexuality information.
It could expand the role that Health and Welfare Canada plays in family planning education. This government could consider placing family planning ads on our television networks. Why in all of this discussion about recriminalizing abortion do we not hear one meaningful word from the government on family planning education?
Why is this government bringing in a restrictive criminal bill on abortion and not doing a single thing to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies? Why cannot the government understand that the humane and the compassionate way to deal with the abortion issue is through progressive policies such as family planning education and not through punitive criminal legislation?
Another issue closely related to family planning education is research into the safe and effective means of contraception. The effectiveness of commonly available contraceptive devices leaves much to be desired.
A Canadian study of women experiencing unwanted pregnancies has shown that a full 64 per cent were using some form of birth control when they became pregnant. Part of the problem is a lack of knowledge about effective birth control. Many of the methods being used were not as effective as others such as condoms alone or the rhythm method.
Some 15 per cent were on the pill when they became pregnant. Although this is one of the most highly effective methods available, it is not 100 per cent effective for the typical user. The two most reliable forms of contraception, the birth control pill and sterilization, are also among those that pose the most health risks or that require a commitment to permanent infertility. Sterilization is obviously not an option for most teenagers or for any young man or young woman who is planning to have a family in the later stage of their life.
Celibacy has been touted as an answer to unwanted pregnancy. To think that married couples will not have sexual intercourse unless they are completely prepared to bring a child into this world is really preposterous. To think that teenagers inundated with sexual messages from the media will suddenly take to perhaps a decade of celibacy is also naive.
Sexuality is a part of the human existence. It is neither realistic nor healthy to try to force asexuality on adults and teenagers unless they are prepared to have children. Rather, the answer lies in effective contraception, safe contraception, and the services and education that will allow all sexually active people to avail themselves of these.
This government should make the funding into research of safe, effective contraception for men and women a priority. Along with failed birth control and inadequate information about birth control is the matter of women who want to have children but are held back because of social and economic factors. I have heard here and around these halls that socio-economic factors are not a reason to have an abortion. Now the government wants to entrench this dubious principle into criminal law.
November 7, 1989

Instead of outlawing these reasons why do we not work to eliminate them? Why expect women to plunge their families into poverty by having more children? Why not try to prevent the unwanted pregnancies and to eliminate the socio-economic conditions that lead women to forgo pregnancy that may very well otherwise be wanted?
According to the National Council on Welfare, almost one in five Canadian children is living below the poverty line today. The government proposes no action on this other than to force poor women to bear more children. One frequent result of poverty during pregnancy is low birth weight, which often leads to further medical complications.
According to the Quebec Corporation of Physicians babies born in certain Montreal and Quebec City neighbourhoods are as likely to be underweight at birth as those in underdeveloped countries. A recent Canadian study indicates that the child mortality rate is twice as high among families at the lowest income level than among those at the highest.
An Ontario study found that being on welfare is one of the strongest predictors of chronic health problems among children. Children are the largest group of users of food banks. A Calgary study of 132 public schools found that 46 reported significant problems with children coming to school hungry. Nutrition has led to success in school. Poor nutrition may lead to an inability to concentrate and poor vision.
Almost two-thirds of single parent families headed by women are living below the poverty line. A Planned Parenthood document states that for many women early parenting leads to poverty, poor health, a breakdown of current or future marriages and a lower level of formal education. It is hypocritical of the government to bring in a bill that criminalizes abortion for socio-economic reasons while the same government contributes to adverse socio-economic conditions for women through regressive economic policies.
The poverty rate for two parent families headed by a person under age 25 was 30 per cent in 1986. Two parents do not guarantee that a child will not grow up in poverty. The Canadian Council on Social Development states that even if both spouses were employed at the minimum they could earn only 92 per cent of the poverty line
Government Orders
income in 1986. Currently the federal minimum wage of $4 an hour is the lowest in Canada.
Poverty is a serious problem in Canada. Raising a child exacerbates the poverty a family may be experiencing or may contribute to poverty. We need to build a society in which children do not mean poverty to a woman or a family, a world in which children are not poor or hungry. The federal government can do much in the area of removing the economic barriers women face when considering whether or not to have a child, but this government seems to simply refuse to focus on economic strategies, on full employment, and adequate service. Instead it offers women regressive taxation and cutbacks. It has no compassion for the poor. This government's actions have been appalling.
It is the height of hypocrisy to make abortion for socio-economic reasons a crime and yet do nothing to eliminate the economic reasons why women feel that they have no other choice but an abortion in some instances. In fact, this government has exacerbated the problem of poverty in Canada by costing people their jobs with the trade deal and tossing thousands of people on welfare through its cut-backs to unemployment insurance and its taxation of the poor and the homeless with the new goods and services tax.
There are many things that this government has the power to do for women and especially for mothers. It could reindex and raise the family allowance. Instead it has dealt motherhood a blow by deindexing it and now it is clawing it back.
This government could expand the Canada Student Loans Program and the Canadian Jobs Strategy, making them more flexible and accessible for parents and young people. These are initial expenses that pay for themselves in the long run with a skilled workforce and a healthier economy. Language training and literacy should be a component of CJS. This would give many young women with small children a second chance to get the kind of education and employment that will allow them to feed their families.
The government could raise the minimum wage. How does the government expect women earning $4 an hour to be able to raise children? The government could also implement mandatory pay equity, employment equity

November 7, 1989
Government Orders
with goals and with timetables, rather than let women be economically penalized simply because they are women.
In our society women still bear the brunt of child rearing. Whether she has a spouse or not, a woman is usually expected to fulfil the demanding task of caring for and raising our children. Through inadequate or non-existing child support payments, women are often the only financial support as well as emotional and moral support of their families.
Women need to know that if they have a child they will not have to give up their job and livelihood, will not have to plunge themselves and their families into poverty, and that there is a support system in place which recognizes that many workers are also parents. In a 1988 survey
21,000	Canadian women said they were not paid labour force participants because they could not find subsidized child care. This government's policies are keeping women at home and keeping women in poverty.
The government came up with an inadequate strategy to deal with the ongoing child care crisis and then it abandoned even that. This government has shown no commitment to the children of Canada. Instead of recriminalizing abortion it should improve the situation for children and for parents in Canada. Instead of making hypocritical promises during the election campaign and breaking them after the election, this government should take positive action.
Canada's system of parental leave lags far behind that of most European countries. A pregnant woman in Canada must be employed in a UI insurable job between 10 and 20 weeks, depending on the regional rate of unemployment, to qualify for only 15 weeks of maternity leave with benefits equalling a maximum of 60 per cent of her insurable earnings.
A man or woman who is a new natural or adoptive parent and has met the qualifying criteria may take a 10-week parental leave at a maximum of 60 per cent of their insurable earnings to care for the infant, providing that the parent lives in a province or works for an employer who allows for this length of parental leave. The government cut parental leave for adoptive parents by five weeks this year. At the same time as the Conservatives are recriminalizing abortion, they are making it more difficult for adoptions to go through. This
is yet another example of the hypocrisy. There is usually a specified time that an adoptive parent must commit to stay at home with their new child. The government is imposing a financial burden on adoptive parents which may deter the adoption process.
Why does the government not expand parental leave to at least 24 weeks as a short-term goal with a view to further expansion and negotiate with the provinces to amend their labour codes to allow for parental leave?
We must also look into other ways in which workers with family responsibilities can be accommodated. We must take effective steps to make Canada a place in which children are welcome, in which children are an important and treasured part of our society. We cannot continue to carry on this government's course of ignoring children's needs: food, shelter and child care. Parents should be able to spend the time they need with their children without depriving themselves or depriving then-families. It has become so expensive to live that if a child has two parents usually both of them must work outside the home. Employers and government must recognize that workers have families and the economy must be restructured to take this fact into account.
Our social system requires women to be the primary care givers of children yet provides almost no support for pregnant women and new mothers. Women at a family life conference spoke of the inability of a blind mother of four to receive homemaker services. Support services must be accessible to all women. Support services pay for themselves in terms of healthy families and well adjusted individuals.
Sexually transmitted diseases may lead to infertility, birth defects, or even death. Health and Welfare Canada estimates that the cost of treating STDs in 1983 was $220 million. The direct cost of treating AIDS in 1985 was an estimated $192.6 million. This does not take into account the personal and social costs of these diseases. Half of all ectopic pregnancies which require emergency surgery to remove a fertilized ovum which is lost in a Fallopian tube is the result of a sexually transmitted disease. A government claiming to care about both foetuses and women should surely tiy to prevent STDs through education and accessible services. Governments should be involved in health protection and promotion, not in restricting reproductive choice for women.
November 7, 1989

The April 1989 federal budget cut $2 million from the Secretary of State women's program. Many of the groups funded through the program were involved in sharing information about issues, particularly issues affecting women including reproductive health. These groups have had their funding chopped by 15 per cent. The federal government cannot continue to evade its responsibilities in the area of health by claiming that it is a provincial matter. If health is only a provincial matter, why do we have a federal health statute guaranteeing accessibility and comprehensiveness among other things? That is what the Canada Health Act does.
If health is only a provincial concern, why does the federal government maintain a funding lever where health care provision is concerned? If health is a provincial matter, why do we have a federal Department of National Health and Welfare with a health promotion branch? The federal government should enforce the standards in the Canada Health Act to ensure access to adequate services which promote reproductive health and choice for all Canadians.
The abortion issue has centred around the ethics of abortion itself. What really needs to be discussed, however, is the ethics of a government that is prepared to restrict access to abortion but not prepared in any real way to address the reasons abortion takes place. The government's policies lead to economic hardship, inadequate planning, education and services, and environmental reproductive hazards. This government has shown concern for women and children. It is a government that sees abortion as a political issue, not a human issue, and is unwilling to look at ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Prevention and support are the keys to creating real choices for women. Restricting abortion limits choice without addressing any of the reasons abortions occur. This abortion bill would reduce access to abortion, not reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. It makes it more difficult to obtain an abortion, but it does nothing in the area of prevention. This bill also sets a precedent for handling unwanted pregnancies through criminal sanction rather than positive action. To me this bill says that women are not to be trusted. It says
Government Orders
that women are not people of integrity, that they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions around their own personal lives for themselves.
The abortion bill does one more thing. It shows Canadians this government's hypocrisy around this issue. This bill does not ensure equal access for the women in all regions of Canada-the women in Prince Edward Island, the women in the north, the women in the rural areas of my home province of British Columbia, or the women in the Atlantic provinces and Newfoundland.
It does nothing to improve access for these women. They must still travel to large urban centres like Montreal. They must pay the expenses of getting there. What does this say to women in Canada who are poor, who cannot afford to travel? What is the option for them when there is no access to abortion services in their own area? It does not work toward reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Criminalization will not prevent unwanted pregnancies. It does not make Canada a supportive society for women and children.
This issue is the fundamental emancipation and equality issue for the women of this country. This is the issue that the women of Canada look toward, whether or not they have ever considered for themselves the option of abortion, whether or not they have ever considered yet for themselves in their lives whether or not to have children. They view this issue as the fundamental issue that states that they are equal people in our society.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dawn Black: I urge members on both sides of this House: "speak to your mothers, speak to your sisters, speak to your daughters, speak to your wives. They understand this issue. They know. We know. Women know. We are people who can be trusted". I urge people on both sides of the House to vote in opposition to this bill for all women in Canada.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the debate but there have been discussions among the three parties and I would like to have consent to move the following motion:
That when the House adjourns on Wednesday, November 29,
1989 it shall stand adjourned until Monday, December 4, 1989 at
11 a.m.

Government Orders


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have leave of the House to introduce the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take this opportunity, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, to thank my hon. friends for their generosity in setting aside these two days, the time of which will be made up I might add in terms of House time, to allow us to plan for our convention.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will resume debate with the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice today in a debate which over the course of the past year has bitterly divided citizens' groups, medical associations, the judiciary and Parliament itself. It has been a fierce and an emotional argument, an argument which has displayed the lives and experiences of individual Canadians across the front pages of newspapers and on the screens of millions of television sets throughout the country.
In the search for a solution to the abortion question, the public spotlight has sacrificed the privacy of everyone caught in the way, dissecting their experiences, emotions and entitlements. The rationale was that we were searching for a kernel of truth that would indicate clearly what was right and what was wrong. That is not the way in which an issue of this importance should be resolved. 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.

These rights relate to some very intimate matters. It is embarrassing for the people concerned and offensive for the rest of us to see these lives paraded in public. These are not issues that should be judged in a media trial.
It is not strictly a matter for the courts, either. However, there is ample evidence that in the absence of any initiative by Parliament, people will keep taking these matters before the courts.
Of course this kind of situation is unacceptable. It is not up to the courts to set policy, since the courts are not accountable to Canadians at election time. Clearly, it is up to our elected representatives to lead the way in this respect.
It is a role we have a duty to fulfil.

Many Canadians have very strong beliefs about whether abortion is right or wrong. In an issue which is so close to the hearts of each of us, we should not be surprised that some feel that it is their moral imperative to declare their stance as the only acceptable perspective in a caring world. When beliefs are held this deeply, they say there can be no concession.
I believe that we must search for common ground. Compromise is very difficult when groups cannot even agree to use the same vocabulary. When we politicize language itself we take away its meaning. Words no longer serve as tools to build understanding. They become weapons to discredit the views of others.
People who call themselves pro-choice in no way consider themselves to be anti-life. They feel that a woman's fundamental right to choose has been denied. It must now, when the right of women to determine their own futures is finally being recognized, be affirmed. And those who say they are pro-life flatly reject any claim that they are anti-choice. On the contrary, their entire effort has been to support the rights of those who cannot make their choices known because they do not yet have a voice.
We should not be surprised that the proposed legislation has not been endorsed by either pro-choice or pro-life groups because it does not use either's vocabulary.
There are few if any moral issues on which a consensus can be reached. However, the abortion isssue is stressful for each and everyone of us because it seems to call for a decision that negates one essential human value while benefiting another.
November 7, 1989

Government Orders
We should not be surprised at the intensity and bitterness of this debate. The fact that democracy encourages protest in our search for the truth is one of its strong points. However, it does not encourage protest for protest's sake. It tends to promote debate and argument so that we can finally agree on what is best for society.

We have been elected by Canadians to choose the course which best balances the rights of everyone concerned. We do not seek to disguise the fact that the bill is a compromise. It is a proposal which accepts the validity of opposing points of view. It recognizes that while abortion must always be a last resort, probably there will always be instances where it is necessary. Each case must be considered separately. We have provided room for that consideration in this legislation.
Over the years my position has been pro-life. I cannot pretend that each word of this legislation is exactly what I would have written in an ideal world, but I do believe that if we want legislation at all, we must compromise. Building on compromise, we must show tolerance. We must try to understand opinions which are different from our own. I do not mean that we have to agree completely, but rather that more than one opinion must be reflected in the law.
Society's values change with time and our laws change with them. The one constant must be our respect for one another. The social contract which guides our conduct with one another is not based on a principle of winner take all.
Twenty-two months ago the Supreme Court, interpreting the Charter of Rights, struck down the previous law on abortion. It recognized that society must choose among competing rights. But the country was left without a framework for making that choice.
The government on Friday, after much soul searching and compromise, tabled this bill. Some people have already declared their opposition. But what is their alternative, to have no law, as we have had for the last 22 months; to leave a policy vacuum, where depending on your point of view, everything or nothing is acceptable?

Obviously, we have a duty to specify the kind of context in which women and their doctors can make such sensitive decisions. The bill before the House today represents the best attempt at a compromise we have seen so far.
We have looked at other options. Some people felt that we could use the provisions of the Canada Health Act.

We have been asked to use the Canada Health Act in two ways. On the one hand, there are advocates of abortion rights who are concerned about the availability of abortion services. They would like us to financially penalize those provinces which do not provide unrestricted services.
The leader of the NDP argued for that approach yesterday. He made the case for invoking the Canada Health Act on abortion, but was not prepared to argue that the federal government should attempt to dictate how services that may be crucial to the very survival of patients, such as neurosurgery, cancer treatment, or heart surgery, should be delivered. Abortion would apparently be the only case where such a weapon would be used.
On the other hand, the pro-life groups have stated that the federal government should use the Canada Health Act to deny payments to provinces which provide abortion services.
Neither of these two alternatives is consistent with current constitutional practice in Canada. The provision of health services is primarily a matter of provincial jurisdiction. According to the Constitution, the provinces are responsible for the operation and delivery of the health care services which all Canadians cherish.
That fact was recognized when Parliament legislated on this issue in 1969. The then Minister of Justice who is today the Leader of the Opposition, described the role of the provinces clearly. He said this:
The relationships in civil law between the patient and the doctor, between the patient and the nurse, between the doctor and the hospital, the nurse and the hospital, are relationships falling within the operation of provincial law, the civil law, and the constitutional responsibility of the provinces -the subject of statutes which regulate hospitals and professions. These are properly provincial matters.

November 7, 1989
Government Orders

The Canada Health Act respects provincial jurisdiction in health matters and recognizes the fact that our provincial health systems have evolved in ways that are characteristic of each province.
The Act's criteria provide general guidelines, deliberately leaving the provinces with a certain latitude in deciding how they are to be applied, so that they can make decisions based on local priorities and capabilities.

If you read the Canada Health Act, Mr. Speaker, you will find that it does not list specific medical services, whether they be cancer treatment, heart surgery or abortion services. The provinces, in conjunction with the medical profession, are responsible for deciding what is medically necessary. The provinces licence medical practitioners and regulate medical institutions such as hospitals. They also decide how best to organize the service and provide access.
The bottom line is that the federal government cannot dictate policies in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It would be an invasion of the provinces' role in Confederation. As the House will know, the constitutionality of the Canada Health Act is currently being challenged. We believe that the act will survive, however, because it respects provincial jurisdiction as it is currently written.
It is only through the criminal power that Parliament can regulate abortion on a national basis. The proposed legislation will give the provinces the guidance they have requested on the legal framework for abortion.
I expect that with the provision of this new legal framework, provincial governments will respect both the letter and the spirit of the law and will arrange for access to all medically necessary services. The federal government will encourage consistency in their responses, recognizing varying provincial circumstances.
Some people have proposed a gestationally based alternative which would divide pregnancy into two or three stages, permitting abortion in the early period and limiting it near the end. The problem is, the boundary line between stages is very difficult to define and it changes with advances in technology. The notion of
foetal viability has evolved significantly in the last five years. Finally, the government's legislation, unlike a gestational approach, recognizes society's interest in the foetus right from the earliest stages.
That is the rationale for the the legislation before the House. We believe that it is moderate and reasonable and that it deserves the support of Canadians. But there are other issues that Parliament must also address. Each year, about 360,000 children are bom in Canada. About
65,000	abortions take place. Over half of them are performed on women under the age of 25. Our challenge is to put in place policies that support Canadian families and that eliminate the causes of such high numbers of abortions.
Most of the women who undergo these abortions know firsthand of the agonizing choice that is being made to prevent a baby from being bom. They do not take the decision lightly. They know that abortion must never be seen as just another form of birth control. Our priority must be to educate young people to be responsible and also to eliminate the economic, social and personal injustices which encourage such a choice.
In the past, policies have been ad hoc and have looked at these issues in isolation from each other. I believe it is time for our country to take a much more comprehensive approach to sexual health, family planning and how we raise our children. The goal must be to help Canadians make informed choices which will create strong and stable families.
One key element was put in place a few days ago when the Prime Minister announced the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Too many Canadian families would like to have children but cannot. The royal commission has been asked to study the causes, treatment and prevention of male and female infertility, reversals of sterilization and a host of other reproductive health issues.
We want Canadians to have the widest possible range of options in deciding whether and when they will have children.

We are also taking steps to help families that already have children. We want to fight family violence and child

sexual abuse. We want to improve daycare services and help Canadian families get out of the poverty trap.
We are taking these steps to make the family a healthy environment for the child and to correct certain situations that make women consider abortion as a last resort.
We also have to look for more effective ways to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies and to cope with these pregnancies when they occur.
In 1977 the federal government of the day agreed with the provinces that the provision of birth control services is primarily a provincial responsibility. Services which were previously delivered by the Family Planning Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare would in the future be provided by them. However, there is a key role which is left for the federal government to play in sponsoring research and providing financial assistance to national organizations involved in the field.
I have asked that the Department of National Health and Welfare earmark a minimum of $500,000 a year over the next three years for research into family planning issues, including contraception and problems in fertility. We also need better information and education. Recognizing that the nature of the problem changes from community to community, we will continue to give sustaining grants to two national organizations, Planned Parenthood of Canada and Serena Canada, to educate, promote and support family planning which is sensitive to the varying needs of different communities.
Another way to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country is to encourage more adoptions. There are thousands of would-be parents who are unable to have their own children and would provide loving homes. We need to encourage more pregnant women to consider adoption as an alternative.
As a result, the federal government plans to sponsor and fund a study to identify factors that could make adoption more appealing to young single mothers. I plan shortly to issue a call for proposals to conduct this study. I hope that it will point to solutions that place more
Government Orders
babies into the homes of Canadians who are otherwise unable to fulfil their aspirations to be caring parents.
Through our health promotion contributions program, we will continue to fund proposals for community-based projects which will help adolescents lead responsible reproductive lives.

A lack of accessible and affordable resources to deal with matters concerning health, reproduction and sexuality has been obvious for some time. Although community organizations, local agencies and provincial departments continue to create new facilities and purchase new equipment, the lack of co-ordination and communication between agencies often leads to duplication and unnecessary spending.

In my opinion, we have an urgent need for balanced and clearly explained information on human sexuality. As a result, we are giving Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada $264,000 toward the development of a national resource centre on reproductive health and human sexuality to provide that information co-ordination.
As I mentioned earlier, each year there are about
360,000	pregnancies brought to term in Canada. But not all the mothers and fathers have the resources which they need to help them develop their knowledge and skills to be good parents. We are in the process of launching two national programs designed to help new parents. The first, the post-partum parent support program, helps new mothers, their partners and other members of the family cope with the arrival of a new child. The second is aimed at the 150,000 young, single, low-income parents we have in Canada, many of whom feel isolated from support and some of whom lack confidence in their ability to raise a child well. This program, which we are undertaking in co-operation with the provinces, will give parents accurate information on their children's health, safety, development and behaviour. We hope to prevent further unplanned pregnancies by making sure people understand the choices open to them in choosing whether to have children.
In an age characterized by the spread of the AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, over-population, child abuse and unwanted pregnancy, we must educate

November 7, 1989
Government Orders
ourselves, provide better and more accessible birth control information and methods and revolutionize the way in which we approach the sexual education of our young.
The issue of abortion cuts to the root of deeply held moral conviction about the meaning of human life and the control of life and death by the instruments of modem technology. As yet, no consensus exists in North America on these issues.
It is tempting on such questions to refuse to consider any significant compromise. That is the position taken by the spokespersons for some organized groups well before they ever saw the bill. Members have that option and some have already said that they will exercise it. Their actions will be applauded by the groups which reject any compromise. To follow that course, however, is to leave without a voice the majority of Canadians who do not belong to such groups and who expect this Parliament to show leadership in building a consensus.
They believe that Canadian women and their doctors have the right to know when abortions may be performed and when they may not. They believe that the private lives of Canadians should not be fought out the media and in the courts. Most important, they believe that it is our responsibility as elected representatives to set the policy, not to leave it to the judges to set by default.
The bill before us today represents a moderate and balanced compromise to an ethical conundrum. Its alternative is stalemate and a legal vacuum. I urge members to consider this legislation carefully, to accept our responsibility to provide the leadership which Canadians are demanding and to support this bill.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I applaud the list of efforts the federal government is planning for the support of women and wonder when we will begin to see them coming into actual fact. The minister can rest assured that we will be watching to ensure that they do become fact and are not just another empty announcement.
The Minister of Finance, during the speech delivered by my colleague, the hon. member from New Westminster-Burnaby, said in a heckle that only the NDP would bring free trade into the abortion issue. That to me suggests that the hon. member still fails to understand that abortion and the attendant control over women and
their bodies is an economic issue that has been inflamed throughout history in order to maintain economic control over women.
The minister referred to my leader's request that access to abortion be regulated by the Canada Health Act. He said that neurosurgery, heart and cancer treatment is not regulated under the Canada Health Act, and so suggested that access to abortion should not be as well.
I would suggest that neurosurgery, heart and cancer treatment is denied because of lack of facilities, not because of someone's moral opinion. I would suggest also that if a whole province refused to do or pay for heart surgery, then the minister and his government would have much to say under the Canada Health Act about that.
I would appreciate it very much if the minister would respond to this question. If a province refused to pay for or facilitate heart surgery, would he, under the Canada Health Act, intervene?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all make one minor correction to the reference to me that was made by the hon. member when she referred to me as the Minister of Finance. I have been here now some 17 years and the great achievement of my political career will be if I can spend my whole career here without ever becoming Minister of Finance. I am sure the Minister of Finance would agree that it would be in the public interest that that be avoided as well.
The hon. member tries to argue again, as her leader did yesterday, that the federal government should refuse to fund medicare services provided in the provinces if they refuse to provide the level of service for abortion which the hon. member would like to see. She does not indicate whether she believes the federal government should be dictating, in the case of these other services she mentioned such as cancer treatment where the very survival of the patient depends upon it, that that treatment should be provided or that it should be provided in a particular way. She does not indicate, in the case of neurosurgery or in the case of heart disease or a whole range of other areas, that the federal government should intervene to require that these services be provided. Look at an issue, for example, related to reproduction. A
November 7, 1989

number of the provinces right now are looking at the question of midwifery. It is an area which is left to provincial jurisdiction. Would the hon. member argue that the federal government should set one policy which would apply from one coast to another which would give women the choice of whether or not they wanted to go to a midwife to deliver a child? No, she says, she would not want to do that.
Indeed, what the NDP is asking for is that any medical services which are provided by provinces, the sole instance in which they ask for federal intervention with us using a financial weapon against the provinces is to require the provinces to increase services on abortion; not in any other instances, they say, solely in the case of abortion. Such an approach would be unconstitutional.
I would invite the hon. member to read the Canada Health Act and she will recognize the fact if she does that the Canada Health Act was deliberately designed by the government of the day, which was a Liberal government, voted on and supported by Parliament, by all of the parties, to ensure that the constitutional rights of all jurisdictions were respected.
Finally, she takes umbrage at the reference I made from this side of the House at the time the member for New Westminster-Burnaby was giving her oration when she tried to attribute the high rate of abortion in Canada to the free trade agreement. I repeat, only the NDP would attempt to so partisanize debate on abortion that they would drag the free trade agreement in and try to blame that for the high rate of abortion in Canada.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the minister and his comments about the attempts that he said that his government was going to make with respect to education of the public. I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to help with the education of the public at the present time.
I would like to pose two questions. Precisely what is the purpose of banning abortion? What do I mean by that question? Surely we have to ask ourselves what is an abortion. That has to be the fundamental question asked of this House and it can only be after we have come to grips with that question and with the answer to it that we decide whether or not abortion should be allowed.
Government Orders
The government obviously has brought forward a bill which clearly makes abortion illegal in this countiy unless certain circumstances apply. I would like to know on what rationale that decision is based, and if in fact it is based on some rationale to protect foetal rights at some point, what foetal rights? Why do they need protection?
Of course, my position is clear and I will be making it abundantly clear when I speak on this bill, and that is that life begins at conception. I would just like to know how we can discuss the issue of abortion and banning abortion without talking about what abortion is and putting a definition.
My second question concerns subclause 3 of clause 287 as proposed, which deals with various drugs. I am asking the minister if he and his government have discussed whether or not that section would include such drugs as RU-486 which is presently being manufactured in France and whether or not that drug would be excluded under clause 3.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, any attempt to have that drug used in Canada would require that an application be made to the Department of National Health and Welfare for approval. The intention of the legislation was to ensure that such things as birth control devices, intrauterine devices, so-called morning-after pills, were permitted but not to allow other means of inducing abortion in Canada except as permitted by the law. No application has been made at the present time for such a pill to be marketed in Canada.
It is not our intention to ban abortion in Canada and I think that it is important, as we discuss this issue, to have an understanding of what this bill is designed to do. The goal is not to ban abortion but rather to set the framework in which decisions can be taken as to when abortion will be permitted in Canada.
One of the fundamental decisions that we take is that it is essentially a health matter to be decided between the woman and her doctor. We have made it clear that we do see competing rights here, that we believe the society does have an interest in the unborn child. But we believe as well that when the health of the mother is threatened, the woman in question and the doctor should have the right to have and perform an abortion in that instance. By setting this framework, we believe that we help to give a clear sense of direction to the women of Canada and also to the doctors in Canada as to when

November 7, 1989
Government Orders
abortion will be permitted and when it will not, and we attempt to balance these competing rights.
I think there probably is no one in this House who believes in the issue as foetal rights, as the hon. member does, who would not recognize the fact that what we are dealing with foetus versus the rights of the woman in question. The goal of this bill is to try to strike a balance between those rights and to give a clear indication as to when it is appropriate that abortion should be permitted in Canada.
Finally, I would welcome an indication from the hon. member as to whether he supports the position that was taken by his party spokesman earlier in favour of using the Canada Health Act to intervene against the provinces, to withhold money from the provinces if they do not expand abortion services in Canada. Was the hon. member who spoke earlier speaking on behalf of his party in that regard?



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Charles Gonthier, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 7th day of November, 1989, at 4.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours Sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment of the House are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Employment; the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre-Agriculture-Removal of oats from Canadian Wheat Board/Results of Decima poll; the hon. member for Beaver River-The Senate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, abortion is a complex issue, perhaps the most complex issue to be faced by this House in the current session or any other session of our long parliamentary history. It is fraught with emotional arguments on both sides and it is crucial that we respect the views of both sides in so far as they have an inalienable right to hold and express such views. It is an issue that must be faced and dealt with in our pluralistic society with both honesty and integrity. This bill is not the answer.
This bill gives the false impression that politicians are not honest, because this bill is not honest. On the one hand, it says abortion is prohibited throughout pregnancy. On the other, it creates a loophole which effectively allows for any and all abortions. Now, some will say, why argue? The actual effect of this bill once passed into law is that anyone who wants an abortion will get one.
The two proposed amendments to Section 287 and Section 288 of the Code make all abortions illegal in Canada, except in cases where a physician is of the opinion that the woman's physical, mental and, and I believe or, psychological health is endangered by the continuance of the pregnancy. In any other circumstance, it is a criminal offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment for anyone to induce an abortion, including self-inducement of an abortion by a female person. In addition, no person can lawfully supply or procure a drug or other noxious thing, or an instrument or thing, for the purposes of inducing an abortion, which again would include the pregnant woman in cases of self-inducement.
From a legal perspective, this bill would not survive a constitutional challenge, as far as I am concerned, in the Supreme Court, in light of the Morgantaler decision. It certainly does not respect Madam Justice Wilson's judgment on the right to "liberty of the person" to choose for herself what happens to her body. Nor does it respect the judgments of Justices Dickens, Lamer, Betz
November 7, 1989

with regard to the security of the person under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The right to security of the person includes a right of access to medical treatment and protection from significant delays in seeking medical treatment. Replacing the requirement of hospital committees to that of only one physician does not change the issue of access since there is absolutely no guarantee that all physicians in Canada would apply the same standard criteria in assessing the health of a pregnant person.
There is also no guarantee that a physician's moral and religious values will not dictate his or her assessment of the need for an abortion. There are no standards or guidelines for all of Canada's physicians to follow, except for, and I quote: "generally accepted standards of the medical profession". Whatever that may mean, they can and do differ from province to province and from territory to province.
As a result of such legislation women certainly do not have equal access before the law, and nor is the law applied equally to all as is required by Section 15.
The interesting thing is that the government had an opportunity to do something here. It is likely that the Supreme Court would accept legislation that would ban abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy except for medical reasons dictated by the expectant mother's condition or that of the unborn child. Indeed, this has been recommended by both the Law Reform Commission of Canada and the Canadian Medical Association. But this is not what the government has given us. Anyone who wants one can get one. That I submit is not the effect of this bill, even if that is its intention.
The question of access, as we have seen, is not addressed. Indeed, it appears that because the bill is silent on access this crucial issue will be thrown back to the provinces and territories, creating 12 different scenarios at a minimum.
I think the thing that is perhaps the most abhorrent about this legislation is that to secure an abortion women in most cases will have to lie. They will have to fabricate a situation for their doctors to ensure that they fall within the definition of a threat to health; physical, mental, or psychological health. What does that mean?
Government Orders
What does it mean medically, and what does it mean practically?
This bill places the onus for the decision squarely with the doctors. Although the Minister of Justice this morning and the Minister of National Health and Welfare this afternoon, in discussing the bill both spoke of a decision between a woman and her doctor, the bill does not say that. The concept of consultation is intrinsic to the woman's right to choose. Clearly she can accept or reject a doctor's recommendation. No one is suggesting anything other than that. But to leave her out of the specifics of the legislation implies a denial of her right to be a full participant in that decision.
The legislation raises more questions. Does it meet the requirements of the security of the person delineated by Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Does it meet the minimum requirements relating to time again set down by the Morgentaler decision? What about women living in remote rural areas whose only access may be a doctor who, as would be his or her right, does not choose to perform abortions? The legislation does not even address this situation.
What about women who convince a doctor that their mental, psychological, or physical health will be impaired by bearing a child? In particular, if they insist that it is their mental or psychological health that is in danger, will this contention, true or false, entered into their permanent medical records come back to haunt them at some future date? The ramifications for the female population of the process may indeed be more detrimental to their health than pregnancy or abortion.
The vast majority of people find abortion abhorrent, and so it is. It goes against every human inclination to protect the helpless. But it is equally abhorrent to the majority of Canadians to force a woman to bear a child when she finds the situation untenable. Few people quarrel with abortion in the context of rape or incest, but there are other situations equally tragic for women; the mother who has neither the financial nor emotional resources to support another child, the teenager frightened out of countenance and unable to cope with the responsibility and equally unable to seek support from her family, the abused wife with nowhere to turn, the woman who does not see parenthood as an option, the woman who is responsible in her sexual life but whose

November 7, 1989
Government Orders
contraception failed. We do not live in rose-covered cottages.
We do not live in ideal situations and far, far too many Canadian women and their children live lives of quiet desperation. Some people just say "Well, that's tough. You made your bed, you must lie in it", or "You made your choice when you became sexually active". There is not much compassion there and there is not really very much common sense either.
If abortion is banned it will not cease. Personally, I am not excessively worried that women will resort to butchers because Canadian doctors are too compassionate to let that happen. But normally law-abiding women and equally law-abiding doctors will flout any flat ban by the thousands. Can anyone turn their back to the woman who faces an alcoholic husband who is demanding his so-called marital rights on the night he gets his pay cheque and say "You made your choice and you must live with it"?
These would be bad laws as this bill will be a bad law. This bill is a bad law because it tacitly invites women and doctors to bend the facts to fit the legislation. If the intent of the law is to ban abortion then the intent is thwarted. If the intent is to allow abortion then the government should say so. Women do not want their rights surreptitiously through the back door. Neither do those Canadians who hold the view that abortion is totally unacceptable deserve to be tricked into thinking, presupposing the trick worked, that this bill stops abortion. This bill is not balanced, it is not compromise. It is sham and Canadians recognize sham.
Since the abortion law was struck down last year, there has been no perceptible increase in abortions. Women do not make these decisions lightly. The agony that all fair-minded people go through in considering the rights of the woman vis-a-vis the rights of the foetus is small, compared to the agony faced by the vast majority of women when they decide they cannot continue their pregnancies. This is a private personal and tragic situation in which parliamentarians, interest groups and the media really should not be able to meddle because the answer, the solution, is not and never has been found in legislation, and certainly not in criminal legislation.
Yes, we have a collective responsibility to act and yes, there is a societal right here, but it is being obscured by the emotion of the debate. What we must act on are long-term solutions and the only real way to create real choice is to create the situation where child-bearing and child-rearing are freely chosen and widely supported, supported by concrete actions and not merely pious do-nothing lip service.
This bill does not even attempt to address the long term, but worst of all, there is no sign of any companion legislation to help to minimize the need for abortion, to create a real freedom of choice for women and men.
There are three basic ingredients to a long-term solution. The first is massive education, not small programs, a little bit here, a little bit there. As a society and a country we have never faced squarely the matters of sexuality and responsibility. We are a nation of ostriches, burying our heads in the sand in these days of fatal sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. The just say no theory is weak to the point of irresponsibility. Federal and provincial governments must work together now to educate the population.
The Hon. Minister of Health espoused some of this idea in his speech. I say to him that women and children need more than words. Five hundred thousand dollars here and $264,000 there is a pittance, it is not enough. If we are going to put our money where our mouths allegedly are, it has to be substantial money that makes substantial change. The women and children of Canada do not need budget cuts and they certainly do not need the GST.
The second is the development of safe, adequate and affordable contraception. Again our society is remiss. We place the responsibility for contraception heavily on the female but provide methods that either seriously jeopardize a woman's health or have a failure rate that no odds-maker would depend on. Sadly, there is no move of any significance on the part of this government in this direction. Rather, we have seen cuts, cuts and more cuts.
The third is a concerted effort to make this country truly supportive of families, of mothers and of their children. What support is there for the pregnant 14-year-old scared out of her mind, for the abused wife, for the woman on welfare who cannot scrape together a decent living for her family, for the one million children
November 7, 1989

in Canada who live in poverty and must depend on food banks, for the physically abused child, for the emotionally abused child and for the sexually abused child?
What about the 70 per cent of child support orders in this country that go unenforced? Above all, what about child care? Where is the child care legislation that would provide not just support, but the intention of a new dawn in caring about families in this country?
If anyone thinks that these matters are unrelated to the abortion issue, then we have even more ostriches than we originally thought. If this were a perfect world- and my colleague the Minister of Justice said that earlier today-a world without violence and without fear, abortion would not be the issue it is today.
If this government were committed to achieving a better level of social justice, a decent standard of living and some alleviation of the plight of the poor, we would be on the road to solving this complex and terrible problem. Instead, we have a bill that insults the intelligence of both sides, that forces women to lie, that institutionalizes hypocrisy. It is just not good enough.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Liberal party for her comments today. She and I share the same critic responsibilities for our respective parties and it is a pleasure to be in the House together.
I have a couple of questions for the member. She is from a region of Canada where the access problem is veiy difficult and where women travel distances and have great difficulty in finding doctors or facilities that perform abortion. I wonder if she could comment on that and on some of the women in rural areas of Atlantic Canada who have great difficulty in accessing services for safe abortion.
Also, could she comment on what this does to women who do not have money, women who are poor? What do they do when they need access to a safe abortion? How do they get to the area of the country that will provide such a service?
My second question deals with her comments relating to the Law reform Commission and the issue of gestational limits. I have a fundamental belief that gestational limits indeed are wrong. From her comments I under-
Govemment Orders
stood that she might perhaps support the concept of the Law Reform Commission.
I have a friend who was five and one-half months pregnant this summer with a third child, very much a wanted child. My friend was diagnosed with a very aggressive form of cancer. She was told by her doctor that she must undergo an abortion in an attempt to save her life. I know how difficult this was for my friend because she shared this pain with me.
I am opposed to gestational limits because my friend and other women in situations like that would then be forced to go through another process or another board or another medical opinion. Would she just comment on the concept of gestational limits as well?


Mary Catherine Clancy: I thank my hon. colleague, the other critic for status of women. Indeed we do share many of the same views on this.
Just to comment on the gestational approach, we do not have legislation in front of us that reflects it, but I certainly find it to be possibly the legislation that might come closest to the compromise that many of us desire. In any legislation that reflected the gestational view, I would not see a situation such as the one of the woman five and a half months pregnant and needing an abortion due to a serious threat to life to be a drawback.
I do not think the Supreme Court would allow us to legislate a problem with time. That is already covered in Morgentaler. I think the gestational approach merely reflects what is the actual situation in medical practice in this country. Certainly the decision of a woman and her doctor at a later point would obviously reflect what is already medical practice in this country.
On the first question with regard to access, we note that in Alberta, for example, access, especially in the north, continues to be a problem. Access in Saskatchewan is very poor with the few centres which provide abortion restricting their services to local women. In Manitoba access is concentrated in Winnipeg. Many New Brunswick women, especially from the North Shore, must travel to the United States or Montreal to access an abortion.
In Nova Scotia over 80 per cent of the province's abortions are performed at one hospital in Halifax. In Prince Edward Island women must travel outside of P.E.I. to obtain abortions as no hospital there will perform them. In Newfoundland, St. John's General

November 7, 1989
Government Orders
Hospital is the only one that provides abortions on a regular basis and access is dependent on a particular doctor at a particular time.
The answer is that poor women are in a worse bind. If I may, and I mean no levity at this whatsoever, in Atlantic Canada where the preferred means of travel of the poor is the train, we have another problem as well. Women who wish to come from northern New Brunswick and the rural areas of Nova Scotia have depended upon the train and that has been taken away from them, how or will be taken away from them. How they are going to afford to get to the regional centres where they can access an abortion, I do not know, but I do know that this bill does not help them.


Mr. Friesen:: I have a question. Given the context of the Charter of Rights and a mother going to a doctor requesting an abortion, does the member feel that the doctor, on a woman's request, is obligated to provide that abortion?


Mary Catherine Clancy: I said quite clearly that a doctor obviously has a right to preferred areas of practice. Some doctors will choose not to perform an abortion, and that is certainly the right of the individual doctor. But it is incumbent upon us, and indeed I believe that this House was certainly given a very broad hint by the Supreme Court of Canada, to look at improving access in a manner that we can control. I am not suggesting that I or the hon. member or a posse from the House of Commons should seek out doctors across the country and put guns to their heads and say "you will perform abortions". That is ridiculous. Access can be answered in manners other than that. Among other things, it can be answered through the Canada Health Act.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as you might detect, I was thinking that we would probably be dealing with this issue a little later. As a matter of fact, I had in mind speaking on this bill tomorrow but the opportunity presented itself this afternoon and I thought I would use it to speak on this bill in the House of Commons.
I see the member across the way, the Minister of Energy, the former minister of health. I must say that his present portfolio presents a little less of a problem to him than if he were the minister of health at this particular time. Having read this bill, I can tell that the
Minister of Energy certainly did not write it. I sympathize with the Minister of Energy and others who, like myself, want a bill which protects human life, as this bill does not. However, unlike the Minister of Energy, I am not constrained by the fact that I am a member of the cabinet and, therefore, will be able to vote in a manner which is more consistent with my conscience rather than a discipline which is imposed.
I do not say that in a light-hearted way or in any way to make fun of the position in which some of our colleagues find themselves as a result of being in cabinet. I suppose every member of this House wants to be in cabinet at some point, but I am sure there are moments like this when members of cabinet find that being there has its difficult moments as well. I make those comments for that reason. I do not want any member to think that my comments should be interpreted otherwise, particularly not when I speak on such a very important issue as this, and when I address some of the remarks to the Minister of Energy, whom I respect immensely for the position which I believe he has on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, as I said in July 1988, when I made my speech in the House of Commons, I have changed my mind on this issue, and I announced this change in my views in April 1988. I realized that for any politician, changing ones stand is not always very popular and is even quite controversial. Even more so if ones says so in public. And that is what I did at the time. I changed my mind on the abortion issue, simply because I could no longer live with the position I had taken, and when I say that, I am not referring to outside pressure but to pressure from within. In other words, my conscience would no longer let me live with the position I had taken at the time. Since April 1988, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to explain to my colleagues in this House and to any Canadians who cared to listen that the only bill that should be passed by this Parliament and this House should respect and protect life before and after birth.
In 1959, before the United Nations, Canada justified the importance of our participation in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. At the time, Mr. Speaker, we as Canadians told the nations of the world that the child not yet born needed special protection, and that the handicapped child should be given special protection and care before and after birth. Today, in 1989, some people
November 7, 1989

say: If a child is going to be handicapped, that is grounds for having an abortion and preventing that child from being born. I keep wondering what happened to us in the last thirty years that made us give up all those values we had acquired since the age of Hippocrates and even before then-Hippocrates said that a doctor had no right to suggest or give medication that would result in the death of a patient, and he even said that one should never offer a woman a pessary to induce abortion. Since that time and even before then, since the time of Hippocrates, that great Greek physician, we as a society have taken the position that we should protect human life, the life of the child yet to be born and the life of any person. And now we are qualifying that position, when we say that if the child yet to be born will be handicapped, we should not allow it to live.
I think we have reached a sorry stage in the history of human civilization. Incidentally, this is not a typically Canadian problem. It is a problem the world over. I keep thinking that we are very regressive in the way we look at things, and I find this very sad.

The bill that we have before us today is deficient in a number of ways and I will spend the next few minutes expressing the amendments that I would like to see to this bill in order to make it acceptable.
First this bill states, in its first sentence, that abortion is wrong. In other words, "Every person who induces an abortion-is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment". This, of course, makes the clear statement that abortion is a criminal offence and should be treated as a crime.
However, the bill is deficient as it goes along. First of all, we are discussing here a term of imprisonment not to exceed two years. I would submit to my colleagues in the House of Commons that if we are to consider abortion to be a crime, a term of two years does not reflect the fact that it is a crime. I believe that that penalty should be stricter and should reflect the seriousness of that statement.
Criminal law does two things; one, it punishes a guilty individual or an individual who behaves in a way unacceptable to society as a whole and, second, it makes a statement of where we stand in that society. It makes a
Government Orders
statement of what we think is right and what we think is wrong. If we are to consider abortion to be a crime, which this bill does, then surely the punishment should reflect that. That sentence of the bill continues:
-	unless the abortion is induced by or under the direction of a
medical practitioner-
I will speak in a few moments on when I think abortion should be permitted which, as some of my colleagues may have detected by now, is not very often. In any case, before we get to that point, I do not believe that an abortion should ever be induced, on the few occasions where they should be, by anyone other than a doctor. Where the sentence says "induced-under the direction of" I believe that an amendment would be necessary to the bill.
The other deficiency that I see in this bill is that the next sentence continues and says:
-a medical practitioner who is of the opinion that,-
It describes when the abortion should be performed. I think that bill should be amended to say, starting with the same sentence, "-unless the abortion is induced by a medical practitioner having received the opinion of two other medical practitioners stating that the abortion is necessary".
In other words, I do not believe that Henry Morgental-er should say: "Abortion is necessary for this woman and, by the way, I will do it right now." I do think that the medical practitioner should be giving an independent opinion. As a matter of fact, I think there should be two of them.
I want to read further because my time is close to ending. The sentence of the bill continues:
-	if the abortion were not induced, the health or life of the female
person would be likely to be threatened.
I think that that should be changed to say only: "the life of the female person would likely be threatened". The word "health" in the previous section of the Criminal Code was completely bent out of shape from its original meaning and we are inviting that by putting it in the bill this time again.
I would like to have commented quite a bit more about this bill. I hope to have the opportunity to offer some of the amendments which I think would go a long way toward making this bill a bill which will protect human life from the time of conception.

November 7, 1989
Private Members' Business


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ensure
that key communications tools, such as radio and television
broadcasting, remain in Canadian hands.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party as our party's communications and culture critic to present this very important motion to the House.
While this motion addresses the question of control or ownership of communications tools, it gives us in the House an opportunity to address the issue of foreign control over our culture and what we can do about it.
The issues of communications broadcasting, control of culture and our cultural independence are issues that will be among the key issues of the 1990s. They, the environment and other issues, will be the issues we will have to deal with in a decade because we are going to see change very rapidly. We are going to see new technologies. We are already seeing that in communications and the effect it has on our culture.
Here is the problem. Recently, one of my assistants went into a video store in Ottawa and looked at the foreign film section where he found not one but several Canadian films including Grey Fox, The Decline of the American Empire and other films. I think this symbolizes why this debate is so important. They are not foreign films. They are Canadian films.
As John Gray, the noted playwright and performer from Vancouver has written, and I quote: "Increasingly, American mass culture is being seen by Canadians as normal culture and Canadian mass culture as abnormal culture. Canadian artists have moved to the fringes of our own country". I think he puts it very well.
Karl Deutsch, in a famous thesis, has written that the test of nationhood is that more communications take place within a country than between that country and another. In many ways Canada is failing its test. I will continue my speech after the interruption from the Senate.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as' follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill S-2, an Act to implement conventions between Canada and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Canada and the Polish People's Republic and an agreement between Canada and Papua New Guinea for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.-Chapter 20.
Bill S-5, an Act to authorize the Safeguard Life Assurance Company to be continued as a corporation under the laws of the Province of Quebec.
Bill C-42, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1990.-Chapter 21.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Waddell:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ensure that key communications tools, such as radio and television broadcasting, remain in Canadian hands.
November 7, 1989
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the interruption, many of our important cultural industries are foreign controlled and many others, such as private television stations, are controlled by Canadian corporations, but they merely serve as conduits for American cultural material. In other words, the majority of programs are American.
Look at the situation in our country-3 per cent of film profits stay in Canada; 97 per cent of film distribution is done by American and international companies. Of video cassette sales, 3 per cent are Canadian. Canadian publishers own 30 per cent of our market. Seventy-eight per cent of magazines sold in Canada are foreign; the rest are Canadian. There are more hours of U.S. newscasts available on Canadian television than there are Canadian newscasts.
In a newspaper ad last year the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting spoke of a typical Canadian child. This child spends over 80 per cent of her television time watching American programs. She spends as much time watching American programming as she does attending school.
The average teenager in this country spends about 24 hours a week watching television. The majority of that time for Anglophones, about 80 per cent, is spent watching foreign programming, and for Francophones about 50 per cent. Now our people have to be open to the world. We live in a global village as Marshall McLuhan, the great Canadian communicator, said. But we also have to have our people see Canada. As I said, Karl Deutsch said part of the role of keeping a nation together is that we can communicate with each other. We have a vigorous country and we have to be showing each other what other parts of the country are like. We also have a vigorous Canadian artistic community that is looking for opportunities to perform and to show their cultural creations to Canadians.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we need vigorous government measures both to encourage the development of Canadian domestic industries and structural changes to limit foreign controls over our markets in broadcasting, telecommunications, publishing and so on.
Private Members' Business
A government in the past introduced a number of measures of this type, such as Bill C-54, in the mid-1970s to protect our publishing industry. It worked. There was an outcry at that. There was a lot of reaction by the Americans, but we held strong. But you need a government that has a lot of courage. That is not something that has been apparent with this particular government.
The Mulroney government has been indifferent to goals, sometimes hostile to these goals of Canadianizing our culture. I will give you some examples. The first example is the free trade deal. It was not supposed to affect Canadian culture. Do you recall the pamphlet that was put out at the time of the last election campaign? It was entitled "What's the big deal on free trade?" by Rick Salutin and Terry Mosher. I will just quote one of the pages because I think it puts it better than I can. The headline is, "I don't care much about Canadian culture. I watch a lot of American TV." And it goes on to talk about the problem there. It states:
Wait a minute. What's this got to do with Canadian popular singers?
After this deal, there won't be any new ones. The U.S. record companies up here who help Canadians get started, will close and move back to the States. Canadians who want recording careers will have to go down there like they used to do, and they'll have to sound like Americans if they want to make it.
I heard the deal says we have a right to support our culture.
It says that. But get this. If our policies to support our culture cost the Americans money here in Canada, then they can penalize us through their trade laws!
Come again?
For instance, let's say our government does something to help Canadian writers or Canadian recording companies.
Let me add to that, or Canadian film makers, which they had proposed to do before the deal.
All the Americans have to do is say that they lost some record or book sales in Canada, because of those policies. The U.S. gets the right to halt our fish or grain or manufactured goods from going to the States, until we stop helping our own artists.
That's ridiculous. It's our country and our culture. What can our government do to them if they act that way?
Nothing. Our government has already agreed to it. It's in the deal.
That puts it very well. That is the problem in the trade deal. The fact is, if I can be more technical, the Americans can take measures of equivalent commercial

November 7, 1989
Private Members' Business
effect if we interfere in their broadcasting, or in their film distribution, or in their magazine policies in Canada. That is giving up a lot of our sovereignty. That is one of the reasons that we have to change this trade deal.
The government has abandoned its film distribution policy. In contrast to the Broadcasting Act the government has rejected the key recommendations of the Standing Committee on broadcasting to protect the Canadian market. I will come back to that in a moment.
The Prime Minister himself recently has had meetings with the big international publisher, Robert Maxwell, over newspapers. I predict that we could easily become a satellite of not only other countries but of big communications multinationals once people like Rupert Murdoch and Robert Maxwell get control of Canadian newspapers.
All the Canadian government has to do is drop the 30 per cent requirement. I think it is 30 per cent, which is the limit of foreign ownership in newspapers. Once the government drops that then even our newspapers will be taken over. So look out The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, Southams, and some of those other people who treat us politicians so well.
The government has applied the Baie Comeau policy inconsistently. The Baie Comeau policy is a policy that states if there are takeovers in the United States of companies that have subsidiaries in Canada, then the Canadian companies have to be put up for sale to Canadians. In the New American Libraries case the government said, "We will just ignore and forget about that policy."
Let me give you a response to that the government should take. We believe in the New Democratic Party that there are Canadian firms that produce the overwhelming majority of Canadian cultural products, that we have a viable industry and that it is worth encouraging. We have to protect our culture.
People generally believe in an open-market system. In this world, as I have said, it is an open world. But even the most sophisticated countries, including the States, protect their own culture. We could get really stream-rolled by the American steamroller, if you like.
In film distribution Jack Valenti of the American film industry, the great lobbyist, a friend of the president,
came to Toronto last week and threatened Canadians. Basically he said, "You had better listen to us." They were bully-boy tactics from the American film industry, so that the Americans can still control 98 per cent of film distribution in Canada.
I introduced a bill which would make structural changes in this market. It would require that we change the current situation. In other words, we would give a slice of the market-I think it is about 15 per cent-to Canadian distribution companies. That is really radical. That is what we propose to do. This government backed away from it, tore up the bill and simply backed away in the face of the American threat.
We have to fund the public broadcasters adequately, the CBC in particular. This government has cut back since it came to power in 1984. In its first four years it cut back from its budget to the CBC of about $970 million to about $770 million to the CBC. We have seen another $140 million in cutbacks. The new management has great plans for the CBC. But we are still facing the possibility of cutting regional programming, cutting news, putting commercials on The National, and so on. We need a five-year plan for the CBC so that it has adequate funding and so that there is no political interference in the CBC, as we could have now when the managers have to ask for more money.
In book publishing, we need a vigorous enforcement of the Baie Comeau policy. We need distinctive Canadian laws on concentration of ownership in the mass media. We cannot let the mass media be owned by just a few people. We have to insist that they remain in Canadian hands.
On television programming, the CBC should be encouraged to produce 95 per cent Canadian content in drama. The private sector must produce 50 per cent Canadian content in prime time between seven o'clock and eleven o'clock. If the private sector does not do it, then we take the licenses away and we get other Canadians who will do it, who will be pleased to get into the private market.
In telecommunications, the Conservatives, supported I might say by the Liberals sometimes, are extending the realm of what we call "in hand services", Call-Net. The Call-Net case is a good example. They are starting to open the door to American giant telephone companies.
November 7, 1989

We need to maintain a distinctive Canadian phone system. Bill C-41, a new bill, will have, first, Canadian control over the Prairie telephone companies. We know what this government will do. It will deregulate it and telephone rates in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta will shoot up for the average person. That has to be stopped.
We need a status of the artists legislation in this country to support Canadian artists, to give them access to social services and at the same time to consider their particular tax situation. It was done in Quebec. It can be done in Canada as a whole.

There is also a problem in Quebec. The French network, especially the CBC's French network, must produce more programs than the English network, but with a smaller budget. Therefore, we see fewer and fewer quality television dramas in French. I am quoting Quebec's creative community. The coalition for the defence of the CBC's French services came to testify and told us that they were forced to work in the studio because outdoor settings cost too much.
It takes money and resources to rival Dallas. The CBC must have resources if it is to protect and promote francophone culture.

So we have to upgrade Radio-Canada as well.
I will conclude with this. I have talked about the intent of the motion, which is to deal with the Canadianization of key communications tools, radio and television. It is important that they remain in Canadian hands.
Herbert Marcuse, the deceased philosopher of the 1960s and 1970s, writing in Eros and Civilization had this to say about culture and art: "Art in its privileged connection to the unconscious is able to express and evoke thoughts, feelings and desires otherwise denied expression". The artist, as Marshall McLuhan said, really looks to the future. The rest of us live in a rear view mirror society. The artist in many ways is in the future.
The Canadian artist is in fact setting the stage for the future direction of Canadian society. That is why we have
Private Members' Business
to let our people see Canadian artists and appreciate Canadian artists, whether it is theatre, film, dance, writing, publishing, or journalism. They are all in then-own way Canadian artists. We have to make this available to Canadians.
We know in Canada that the public network, the CBC, is underfunded and cannot live up to Canadian content requirements. We know that the private sector is in fact not doing its job. That is what the Caplan-Sauvageau report said. We have to encourage it. This government has backed away in every instance from that.
A country where video stores advertise Canadian videos as foreign films better pull up its socks in terms of culture. This is a highly competitive world in culture as in every other matter. We have to take measures, as I have outlined here, in broadcasting, telecommunications, in the status of the artist, and in other ways to protect Canadian artists and Canadian culture and allow Canadians to communicate between themselves in this great country.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, this motion speaks to keeping tools of communication, that is radio and television, in Canadian hands. That is the text we were presented with in speaking to the motion of my colleague. I would suggest that it goes further into other areas of serious concern, and the first I would suggest is that of our artists.
It must be recognized in today's society-and the minister pointed that out most succinctly this morning- that if we do not recognize the status of the artists in Canadian society and give them their due respect and acknowledge through concrete earning power their right and place in society, we will never be able to promote who we are and what we are through the voice of the distinctive Canadian artistic talent that does express who we are in our society. I think it leaves us impoverished in many ways.
As Canadians we truly live in a culturally occupied country. Some 80 per cent of our publishing industry is in foreign hands, 97 per cent of films shown in Canada are foreign, 85 per cent of records and tapes are based on imported master tapes. In broadcasting, 71 per cent of all programs viewed by English speaking Canadians on television are produced by Americans. The figure is much lower in French speaking Canada, but as globalization takes place that will be impacted too.

November 7, 1989
Private Members' Business
Indeed, defining and enhancing Canadian culture goes far beyond radio and television. School books, audio-visual documents, videos, literary and general works, scholarly and specialized books and magazines are also key, everyday tools used to train and educate new generations of Canadians. They shape our collective imagination, build the myths that frame our destinies, develop our perceptions, attitudes, beliefs and behaviour, and influence our way of living. That is not to leave aside the whole culture of sports: Canadian football, rugby, soccer, lacrosse, and our two new baseball teams are making baseball viewing the fastest growing sport on our television sets, and of course there is Hockey Night in Canada. Without it, what would Saturday night in Canada be like for tens of thousands of Canadians? That is all part of the culture of Canada.
I believe they can be powerful means of asserting national unity and national identity, if we would have access to those cultural skills as portrayed in a variety of ways in our theatres, on our screens, and in our libraries.
The former publisher of Saturday Night, John MacFar-lane, has said it so well: "It is important as a country to make the distinction between importing merchandise and importing culture. Wearing foreign shoes and driving foreign cars won't make us any less Canadian, but without our own culture, we're nothing more than a colony".
The Tories used to believe this too. In 1932, Prime Minister Bennett when introducing the first Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act stated: "This country must be assured of complete control of broadcasting from Canadian sources, free from foreign interference or influence. Without such controls, radio broadcasting can never become a great agency for communication of matters of national concern and for the diffusion of national thought and ideals, and without such control, it can never be the agency by which national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened".
I am going to have to ask my colleague to take over, please.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Whatever happened to that strong Tory voice? Did Mr. Bennett's worst fears come true? Because, despite this firm conviction, foreign companies were able obtain an advantageous position in Canadian broadcasting?
In 1968, a new Broadcasting Act was introduced which clearly stated that the Canadian broadcasting system must be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians so as to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada.
As a result, through the courageous Liberal Canadian public policy enacted between 1969 and 1973, foreign firms divested themselves of interest in 55 cable broadcast firms, 13 television stations, 10 radio stations, and one short wave transmitting station. Canadian buy-back transitions totalled almost $150 million. These events benefited the entire Canadian economy with broadcast earnings jumping by 700 per cent and before tax profits by 550 per cent between 1968 and 1973. The number of jobs available to Canadians also doubled. Today these Canadian firms are among the healthiest and most profitable in the country, using the cutting edge of technology and breaking new frontiers.
This government has said it is in favour of increasing Canadian control of our key cultural tools. I believe we must go even further than the motion of the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, for if we look at the government's record it is not encouraging. It has failed to include within a new broadcasting bill an 80 per cent Canadian ownership, a requirement which was recommended by both the Caplan-Sauvageau report and the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. As a result, I will be introducing an amendment that will provide for 80 per cent Canadian ownership requirement, which I hope this government will have the vision to accept.
It also caved in to the American scorched earth threats on book publishing, the most blatant example being the purchase of Ginn and Company, without full control being divested to Canadians. Canadians have 51 per cent equity but major decisions can be vetoed by the majority shareholders, the Americas. Many of our national cultural Crown corporations do not even require board members to be Canadian citizens. This I hope to remedy soon through a Private Member's Bill.
November 7, 1989

In conclusion, broadcasting and the daily press in Canada have almost entirely been controlled by Canadian owned firms. Through the years the goal of Canadian ownership has been continually upheld.
A 1985 film industry task force concluded that in sectors where foreign domination remains strong, publishing and film, Canadian works distributed by indigenous companies are confined to a marginal position in the market. These same Canadian companies are constantly troubled by problems of undercapitalization and financial instability which prevent them from responding to the social, economic and cultural needs of the country. Therefore control of the communications industry is the bedrock of Canadian cultural sovereignty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before recoginizing the next speaker, I would simply like to point out that, since House did not object, I assumed that the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Vanclief) could speak when not in his seat. I think parliamentary tolerance allows it.
Having said that, I now recognize the Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam on a point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), my colleague and cultural affairs critic of the Liberal Party, is sick today. Should she come back to the House, she could perhaps spend a few more minutes on another speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The chair is in the hands of the House. The Hon. Member for Kamouraska -Riviere-du-Loup.


Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, I only hope that the Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam (Mr. Waddell) did not put a curse on us with his Motion No. 178, for I am anxious to make my remarks without choking.
Private Members' Business
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian ownership of radio and television broadcasting in this country has been an issue of great concern for all Canadian governments ever since the first Canadian broadcasting legislation was introduced by a Conservative Government in 1932. Under that legislation, the radiobroadcasting spectrum was considered as being in the public domain and subjected to regulations in the public interest.
When he introduced the original radiobroadcasting legislation, the then Prime Minister R.B. Bennett stated, and I quote:
First of all, this country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian sources, free from foreign interference of influence. Without such control radio broadcasting can never become a great agency for the communication of matters of national concern and for the diffusion of national thought and ideals, and without such control it can never be the agency by which national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened.
These remarks may be even more fitting today than they were in 1932. The Legislator has tried, in the Canadian radiobroadcasting legislation, to keep up with the times.
As a reflection of the changes is media ownership Paragraph 3 (b) of the Broadcasting Act of 1968 which is still in force today provides that the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians so as to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada.
An order is council containing the directives issued to the CRTC concerning the ability of some Canadian corporations to hold a broadcasting licence has further defined this section of the Act.
The motion under consideration today refers to the key communication tools of broadcasting companies operating in Canada. We are not dealing here with broadcasting companies which broadcast in countries other than Canada and whose signal Canadians can receive. This is altogether a different issue.
Clearly the Canadian Government could neither ensure that Canadians own and control broadcasting undertakings outside the country nor require that the latter hold a licence to broadcast programs aimed at Canadians.

Private Members' Business
The Government broadcasting policy is not to restrict access to foreign programs, but rather to ensure that the Canadian broadcasting system offers a satisfactory choice of high quality Canadian programs.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation introduced by this Government proceeds along those lines.
First, the Bill reconfirms the principle that the radio spectrum is public property and must be regulated in the interests of all Canadians.
It further states that the broadcasting system provides through its programming a public service essential to the maintainance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty.
Second, the legislation uses the wording of the 1968 Act, which provides that the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians.
Third, concerning the increasing use of non-Canadian programs in our broadcasting system, the legislation expressly empowers the CRTC to regulate the provision of programming services, even from foreign sources, by broadcasting undertakings.
Under that paragraph, Mr. Speaker, it would be the Commission's duty to strike the most appropriate balance between Canadian and foreign programs. In my view, this is an approach that a majority of Canadians would support.
The definition of "effectively owned and controlled by Canadians" would still be determined by the Governor in Council. This provides the Government with the flexibility needed to specify what is a Canadian corporation under the Act.
The current direction concerning Canadian corporations eligible to hold a broadcasting licence are contained in eight paragraphs covering two pages. Elowever, the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in June 1989 recommended that the direction be made more specific, in terms especially of the provisions concerning paid-up capital.
To show how complex that kind of regulations can be, I would like to read into the record parts of the current
direction, which was drafted to be as specific as possible. The direction starts at Section 2, and I quote:
The Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission is herby directed that, on and after January 12, 1971, broadcasting licences may not be issued and renewals of broadcasting licences may not be guaranteed to applicants of the classes described in Section 3.
Section 3. The classes referred to in section 2 are as follows:
(a)	persons who are not Canadian citizens or eligible Canadian corporations; and
(b)	governments of countries other than Canada or of political subdivisions of countries other than Canada and agents of such governments.
Section 4. For the purposes of this Direction, an "eligible Canadian corporation" is a corporation
(a)	that is incorporated under the laws of Canada or a province,
(b)	of which the chairman or other presiding officer and each of the directors or other similar officers are Canadians citizens, and
(c)	of which, if it is corporation having share capital, at least four-fifths of the shares having full voting rights under all circumstances and shares representing in the aggregate at least four-fifths of the paid-up capital are beneficially owned by Canadian citizens or by corporations other than corporations that are controlled directly or indirectly by citizens or subjects of a country other than Canada.
Except that, in any case where, in the opinion of the Commission, notwithstanding that the corporation is one to which subparagraphs (a) to (c) apply, the corporation is effectively owned or controlled either directly or indirectly and either through the holding of shares of the corporation or any other corporation or through the holding of a significant portion of the outstanding debt of the corporation or in any other manner whatever, by or on behalf of any person, body or authority of a class described in section 3, the corporation shall be deemed not to be an eligible Canadian corporation.
The Govemement has already stated its intention, Mr. Speaker, in the Broadcasting Bill to keep the legislative and regulatory provisions concerning Canadian ownership of the electronic media in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, broadcasting is perhaps the most important of our cultural industries. This legislation is part of the Government's commitment to protect and strengthen Canadian cultural sovereignty.


Don Boudria: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ensure
that key communications tools, such as radio and television
broadcasting, remain in Canadian hands.

Not only should those vital instruments remain in Canadian hands but, as my distinguished colleague from Mount Royal said so eloquently, it is important that those institutions in fact be controlled by Canadians. Situations such as these have happened in the past; for instance, in the book publishing industry where Americans bought minority shares but got majority votes in terms of decisions in the case of that industry, which is not appropriate for our country.
If we speak of the big screen, of movie theatres, there is something rather interesting that happens. It has been said before-and I believe my colleague from Mount Royal mentioned this as well-that some 3 per cent of the screen time is presently Canadian and the rest of course is foreign, most of it being American.
I was at a meeting of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group some two years ago. It was the Americans' turn to have the meeting and it was in Key West, Florida. I see my colleague across the way from Burlington who was also at the meeting. We were all discussing this issue with American legislators, congressmen and senators. They had been lobbied extensively before coming to the meeting by Jack Valenti. That was obvious. They even admitted to that in discussions that we had.
It was interesting that they all came into that meeting feeling how unfair Canadians were because we were restricting the Americans in their opportunity to invest in and to work in this field in Canada in a way that was unhindered, and that we should not put those unfair road blocks there, according to the senators and congressmen who had just been lobbied by Mr. Valenti.
In discussing this with them we asked one American congressman how he would feel if he watched film after film and never saw a place in his own country, never saw a scene where he had actually been in the country where he had lived all his life and where he was born. We asked: "Would you, as Americans, accept that?"
Private Members' Business
They said: "Of course not. That would be intolerable. We would not accept having only films from England in the United States. That just would not do".
We said: "Did it ever occur to you that 3 per cent of what we see in Canada is ours, only 3 per cent, and Jack Valenti is telling you that that is too much?"
They looked at it and said: "Maybe if you put it that way, I suppose it is worth looking at again."
What this tells me, apart from the fact that Mr. Valenti and others are extremely powerful lobbyists in the United States, is that they do not exactly give a straight bill of goods to American legislators. They do not represent the true facts to them. Therefore, often the only view that the American senator and congressman have of our country is that presented to them by these lobbyists with their own vested interests trying to control the whole industry.
We are not talking about something small here. We are talking about a $6 billion industry. We are talking about a lot of money. Therefore it is quite easy for lobbyists on the part of that industry to put out very glossy brochures and very effective and dramatic examples of some effort that we may have done to protect our Canadian culture and to exaggerate, way out of proportion and in very dramatic ways, to show their own government officials how we as Canadians according to them are unfair.
The only unfairness is the unfairness to our own citizens that we do not protect our culture enough in this country, and that we must be very vigilant in that regard. We must protect both the Canadian content itself and, not as some have said, just the container. We must protect the ownership of the industry. We must protect the availability of programming to Canadians. We must ensure that the decision-making ability remains Canadian as well.
Since I do not want this item to be talked out, I would like to see it voted in the affirmative. I will, at this point, terminate my remarks. Hopefully, we could vote on this item immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We still have some time left. Are other Hon. Members seeking the floor? The Hon. Member for Laurentides (Mr. Vien).

November 7, 1989
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, you are aware of the significance which both French and English speaking Canadians attach to the issue of cultural sovereignty. As could be seen throughout the public debate on free trade, it is vital and the very foundation of our great country.
During the last election campaign our government made a firm commitment to the people of Canada, assuring them that our cultural legacy would no go on the auction block. The motion before the House has to do with the cultural sovereignty issue. Government directives concerning Canadian control over the ownership of broadcasting companies are aimed at ensuring that our means of communication reflect our history, our culture, and our projects for the future.
Our determination to strengthen the rules applicable to Canadian control over broadcasting companies can be explained in part by the evolution of our society. Among other things, I have in mind economic development as it relates to regional disparities, the demographic trends of both linguistic communities and our multi-ethnic components, scientific progress-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member for Laurentides but the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, on October 20,1 asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration to implement a special program to replace the 6,000 quality jobs lost in Montreal since
the beginning of 1989, but the minister did not give me an adequate response.

Mr. Speaker, it was reported in an article which appeared in the October 14, 1989 issue of La Presse that, and I quote: "In the first nine months of the year, Montreal companies have issued 83 permanent mass lay-off notices involving the loss of some 6,000 jobs. In the same period last year, they issued 76 notices of their intention to lay-off 5,000 workers. This represents an increase of 18 per cent."

Each time that we raise this issue with the government, it proudly announces how many jobs have been created since 1984 when this government came to power. On October 20 the minister told us that 160,000 jobs have been created in Montreal since 1984, but of course she never tells us the nature of these jobs or where they are to be found, what kind of jobs and in what firms.
On the other hand, I would like to put on record with the minister and the government where the 6,000 jobs have been lost since the beginning of this year.
Since this year the following job losses have been announced in Montreal: Gillette, 590 jobs; Weston Foods, 360 jobs; Allergan Pharmaceutical, 62 jobs; Kraft Foods, 290 jobs; Warnaco Corporation, 140 jobs; Central Guarantee Trust, 30 jobs; Simpson's, 1,100 jobs; Forsythe Shirts, 50 jobs; Canadian Marconi, 300 jobs. Geoffrion-Leclerc, 300 jobs; Northern Telecom, 250 jobs; Compag-nie un Belage Summerville, 180 jobs; Hostess, Frito-Lay Corporation, 110 jobs, La Belle Fermiere, 80 jobs; Rothman's Benson and Hedges, 239 jobs; Montreal Vickers, 380 jobs; Progress Corporation, 75 jobs; Johnson and Johnson, 86 jobs; M. A. N. Ashton Inc., 250 jobs; Leviton Manufacturing of Canada, 175 jobs; Lawson Martin, 85 jobs; Unisys, 230 jobs; Domtar, 500 jobs; VIA Rail, 913 jobs; and Eastern Airlines, 200 jobs.
In June the Economic Development Commission of Montreal published a report indicating that the unemployment rate in 23 Montreal neighbourhoods is over 15 per cent while in six neighbourhoods it is over 20 per cent. We also have articles that I could quote from Le Devoir of Montreal pointing out that one out of five Montrealers are suffering from hunger. At a recent meeting in Montreal to mark World Hunger Day the
November 7, 1989

different associations that work with the hungry and with the poor in Montreal were able to verify those figures.
The Minister of Finance predicts an unemployment rate of 8.5 per cent in 1990, the Bank of Montreal predicts an unemployment rate of 9 per cent in 1990, and Jim Frank of the Conference Board of Canada has warned us that a risk of recession will be higher in 1990 than at any time since 1982. If we put all those things together the situation is serious.
As I said at the beginning, the parliamentary secretary who is here to answer me this evening will probably cite the same sort of figures that the minister did on October 20. He will say how thousands of jobs are created, but he will not tell us what kinds of jobs those are. He will not tell us in what firms those jobs are to be found, nor will he tell us that most of those jobs are minimum wage, non-union, part-time or temporary jobs; in other words, not the quality type of jobs that were lost, which were enumerated in a long list that I put before the House.
The Social Planning Council of Greater Toronto-and there are not similar figures for Montreal-recently pointed out that 90 per cent of the new jobs in Toronto were in the low paying service sector. Once again I appeal to the government. I appeal to these fine gentlemen opposite because I know they have good hearts to consider the 6,000 employees who have lost their jobs in Montreal since the beginning of the year. I appeal to them to take specific steps to replace those jobs with quality jobs; not low paying service jobs but quality jobs.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the metropolitan area of Montreal, with its population of 2.9 million, a labour force of 1.5 million, and its diversified activities and infrastructure, constitutes one of the major forces impacting the Canadian economy. Montreal accounts for 11.3 per cent of the population of Canada and 11.7 per cent of its labour force. It is also the hub of Quebec's economic, social and cultural life and its major urban area.
As for the over-all employment situation, there have been significant improvements over the past five years, especially compared to the experience during the 1980 to 1984 period. In the four years up to August 1984 employment in Montreal declined by 20,000.1 wish I had
Adjournment Debate
the list to read out in the way the member did. The unemployment rate climbed by 2.3 per cent.
In marked contrast, there were 160,000 more people employed in Montreal in September 1989 than there had been when this government took office in September 1984. Despite vigorous growth in the labour force there are some 38,000 fewer unemployed and the unemployment rate is 3.3 percentage points lower than five years ago. In the last year alone employment is up by 10,000. Unemployment is down by 12,000 and the unemployment rate has dropped to 8 per cent.
Since 1985 there have been a lot of joint actions by various levels of government on the economic situation in Montreal. This includes two major initiatives on the part of the federal government. In 1985 there was the creation of the ministerial committee on the development of the Montreal region to advise the government on how to consolidate Montreal's role as a centre for development. In 1986 there was the creation of the committee for the economic recovery and revitalization of employment in east end Montreal. There have also been concrete initiatives by the federal government, especially Employment and Immigration Canada, to help Montreal. The following are some examples of that.
In 1988-89 Employment and Immigration Canada invested $87 million in the city of Montreal through programs under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. A total of 29,500 people participated in Canadian Jobs Strategy activities in Montreal.
Since the beginning of this year Employment and Immigration Canada has completed 20 agreements under the industrial adjustment service at a cost to EIC of $127,083. A further 29 new agreements have been signed this year with a commitment of $280,000 in funding by EIC. The Industrial Adjustment Service Agreements also involve spending by the province and the private sector so that the total expenditures in Montreal under the completed and new agreements is expected to exceed $1.3 million.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time provided for your reply has now expired.

November 7, 1989
Adjournment Debate
The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Laporte) has the floor.


AGRICULTURE-REMOVAL OF OATS FROM CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-RESULTS OF DECIMA POLL
Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House on May 4 last to question the Minister of Agriculture with respect to the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, particularly with respect to oats under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board which at that time had not yet been removed.
My question to the minister was this: If it could be demonstrated that a large majority of producers in western Canada did not want oats removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, would the minister heed those wishes and in fact would the minister allow the producers in western Canada to decide the future of their own Canadian Wheat Board?
The minister did not answer my question. Instead, he simply went on to state that there had been ongoing consultations.
In the supplementary part of the question he again did not answer but outlined some of the groups which had been consulted. These included, as reported in Hansard, the United Grain Growers Association, the Canadian Western Wheat Growers Association, the Western Barley Growers Association, the Prairie Canola Growers Association, the Alberta Pork Producers Development Board, the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission, the Cattlemen's Association, the Manitoba Farm Business Association, the Manitoba Hog Producers Marketing Board, the Saskatchewan Marketing Board, the Government of Manitoba, the Government of Alberta and the Government of Saskatchewan.
It is all very well to have consulted these groups, but I am wondering what o these groups have to do with the future of oats under the Canadian Wheat Board.
With respect to the United Grain Growers and with respect to the Canadian Wheat Growers Association, it is valid to consult those groups because they in fact have oats producers with them. But I would like to know what
the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission has to do with the production of oats in western Canada.
Further, what does the Cattlemen's Association, the Manitoba Farm Business Association, the Manitoba Hog Producers Marketing Board and the Saskatchewan Marketing Board have to do with it? They do not grow oats. What does the Western Barley Growers Association and the Prairie Canola Growers Association have to do with it? They do not represent oats producers; they represent other commodities.
Mr. Speaker, what the minister failed to point out was that there had been a Decima poll that had just been completed at that time. The minister knew about it. That poll pointed out that well over 70 per cent of producers in western Canada felt that they had not been consulted on the oats issue. Furthermore, fully two-thirds of producers in western Canada wanted to have oats remain under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
What the minister failed to point out was that the prairie wheat pools were not consulted, specifically the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool which is probably the largest individual farm organization in the country and which opposed the removal of oats.
The minister did not indicate that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture actually passed a resolution at its last convention saying that oats should not be removed without a vote by the producers in western Canada. The minister did not even point out the fact that the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board had not been consulted. The Minister for Grains and Oilseeds has pointed out that he had no obligation to consult with the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board. The advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board is a democratically elected body representing some 140,000 permit book holders in western Canada. It is there to advise the wheat board.
It is true that the minister does not have to consult with the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board, but there is no obligation for him to consult with the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission either. I would think it is much more logical to consult with the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board than it is to consult with the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission with respect to the removal of oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The reason there was no consultation with these other groups that I have mentioned is that they were opposed to the removal of oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. The government consulted only with those groups that agreed with its position and certainly not groups germane to the issue at hand, namely, the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I again would ask: Why does not the government allow the permit book holders in western Canada to decide the fate and the future of their own wheat board? It is a wheat board that is funded by producers, funded by farmers who are members of the Canadian Wheat Board. They should be deciding the future of that wheat board.
If the member who is going to respond on behalf of the government is simply going to spout some rhetoric and not answer the question, he need not bother, because farmers in western Canada are concerned about their future way of life. They see their way of life eroding and they see the Canadian Wheat Board as an integral part of that way of life.
I again ask this government, will it not allow the producers, the members, the permit book holders in western Canada, those 140,000 farmers, to decide their own fate and to decide the future of the Canadian Wheat Board?


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to confirm this government's commitment to consultation when making policy decisions. The commitment was met again when farm groups told us they wanted the responsibility for marketing oats transferred from the Canadian Wheat Board to the private individuals and co-operative companies.
We talked to farmers and farm groups about marketing oats for three years. As well as talking to producers and their organizations, we talked to traders, processors and provincial governments. We were told by many groups that they wanted the change in marketing. These groups included the United Grain Growers, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, the Western Barley Growers Association, the Prairie Canola Growers Association, Alberta Pork Producers Development Corporation, the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission, the
Adjournment Debate
Prairie Cattlemen's Association, the Manitoba Farm Business Association, the Manitoba Hog Producers Marketing Board, the Saskatchewan Pork Producers Marketing Board and the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. So you can see the extent of our consultations.
In 1988-89 oats ranked sixth in value among the Canadian export crops and accounted for 4 per cent of the Canadian Wheat Board export sales. This was the peak year for Canadian oats exports because of the drought-reduced crop in the U.S.
Oats is a special crop sold in small quantities with specific quality requirements for human food and racehorse feed. Private traders have the flexibility both to pursue niche markets and to handle bulk sales of feed oats. This flexibility means oats producers will have a marketing system suited to their needs.
The change in the marketing does not affect the quotas, grading and weighing of oats handled by the elevator system. Grain companies and co-operatives will be able to offer pooled price options to producers as they do now with many other special crops. The change in oats marketing is not related to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement or any other international trade discussion. The decision was based on the merits of the product itself.
The U.S. demand for food oats is growing and Canada's reputation for producing high quality oats means new opportunities for Canadian oats producers. The new system is already providing increased opportunities for oats processing facilities on the prairies.
Can-Oat Milling Inc. recently introduced the building of an oats processing plant near Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, while Con-Agra and Westglen Mills are building a plant near Barrhead, Alberta, as a joint venture. Oats producers will be able to capture premiums offered in these markets.
I am confident this change to the marketing system is the best in the long-term interests of the producers.


THE SENATE
Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, it pleases me to rise tonight under Standing Orders 37 and 38 to question the government on a vital matter of political reform.

November 7, 1989
Adjournment Debate
The House will recall that I raised, on October 30, the issue of the Alberta vacancy in the Senate. The Prime Minister had no answer, indeed seemed unprepared for the question, so I trust the government will have some kind of reply now.
Two years ago this seat became vacant with the resignation of Senator Cameron. It has been vacant since. The House will know how senators have traditionally been appointed and we are seeing some of the consequences of that now with Senator Cogger.
Since the early 1980s there has been a determined move to reform the Senate of Canada. It began in Alberta but since the advent of my party it has grown rapidly. It now is the position of all governments in western Canada, most in eastern Canada, and is gaining a foothold in parts of central Canada. This, of course, is the Triple-E movement. It is enshrined in the legal text of a constitutional amendment drawn up by a reform party sponsored task force and presented to the western premiers in May of 1988.
The idea is to make the Senate elected with an effective veto power over federal legislation and with equal representation from each province. Australia has such a Senate in a parliamentary system like ours and it has served to lessen the regional transfers and regional tensions that have characterized our federal system. In Canada, due to its undemocratic nature, the Senate has lacked the moral authority to fulfil the role of regional representation given it by the Fathers of Confederation.
It is truly unbelievable that in 1989 one quarter of the seats in the Parliament of Canada remain unelected. Indeed, many are reserved for patronage appointments of the worst kind. The irony of this is not lost on the Canadian voter as he gazes in disbelief at our Prime Minister pontificating about democracy on the international stage.
The Prime Minister decided to appoint senators from provincial lists under the terms of the unratified Meech Lake Accord. It is interesting to note that just yesterday, Premier Getty announced that he will rethink his position on Meech Lake if the Prime Minister continues to waver on appointing Mr. Waters. The Prime Minister and others did not count on the strength of the tide for Senate reform sweeping the west. And, as any sincere
Senate reformer knows, electing senators is the essence of any reform and certainly not an item for negotiation.
Premier Getty in Alberta wisely agreed to be guided by the electorate in submitting his choice to the Prime Minister. In August of this year, the Alberta legislature passed the Senatorial Selection Act to provide a legislative framework for the Premier's advice to the Prime Minister.
Hon. members will know clearly what happened. Despite the shrill warning of a few Tory MPs, Albertans went to the polls en masse on October 16 and voted overwhelmingly for Lieutenant-General Stanley C. Waters, the Reform Party candidate who garnered over 40 per cent of the votes. Liberal, PC, and Independent candidates trailed far behind. The NDP chose not to field a candidate. It is apparently the NDP view that socialism is ideologically incompatible with regional representation.
On October 19, Premier Getty submitted the list of candidates and their vote totals to the Prime Minister in order to satisfy the provisions of both the Meech Lake Accord and the Senatorial Selection Act. So that brings us to today. What is the Prime Minister to do? It is clear there are only two choices: first, he could appoint immediately the clear choice of Albertans, or second, use some other criteria.
I want to review, if I could, three of the red herrings used to argue against Mr. Waters' appointment to the Senate. The first is that the appointment should be delayed until the Meech Lake Accord is finished dying and wreaking its havoc upon federal-provincial relations in this country. This in no way prevents Albertans' clear choice being appointed to a seat that is vacant now.
The second argument is that Mr. Waters is politically unsuited to the position. Indeed, in the eyes of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, he should not be appointed because of his political views. Of course, it is precisely these political views upon which Mr. Waters was elected. Albertans had the option of the PC and turned it down. They wanted a candidate from a party to fight Meech Lake, enforced bilingualism but most of all to fight the goods and services tax and the reckless spending of this government. These views are not widely shared, perhaps, in Ottawa but that is the representation that Albertans want.

This is not only an undemocratic argument; it is also dangerous and untrue. Mr. Waters is a forthright man who shoots from the hip. Under the Trudeau administration, he was commander of the Canadian Army. Since retiring from the Forces, he has been one of Alberta's most prominent businessmen and, indeed, was a very prominent Tory until Preston Manning arrived on the scene. The External Affairs Minister's comments about Mr. Waters' views possibly say more about his own attitude to fiscal conservatives in his own party than they do about Mr. Waters.
Finally there is the argument that this series of events has somehow violated the Canadian Constitution. Let me make my party's position clear here. Under the Constitution Act, 1867, Section 24, it is the Governor General who appoints senators and the Governor General is free to do as he or she pleases. Now we know that the Governor General, by convention, takes advice from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may choose to recommend Mr. Waters or anyone else. That is his choice.
I would remind the government, however, that a constitution operates not only according to the letter of the law but also according to a series of conventions, the intention of which is to ensure that the democratic will prevails. Clearly, the Prime Minister has the technical authority to do what he wants, but the political culture of our country clearly says that the right thing to do is to appoint Mr. Waters and appoint him now. If he denies democracy or delays it, it will be clear where he stands with regard to the views of Albertans and their basic right to representation. I trust that whoever answers my question will shed some light on where the government really stands on this issue and Senate reform generally. The government has been suspiciously quiet about where it stands on every one of the three Es in the reform proposal. In both the debate over Meech Lake and over Mr. Waters it is becoming increasingly suggested by Canadians that the government is really trying to block Senate reform in almost any form. Perhaps this is what Premier Getty is beginning to suspect. It seems as though he is definitely concerned about that. Nothing radical is happening here. It is just a start. After 122 years, surely westerners are entitled to that.
Adjournment Debate


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, in an exchange with the Prime Minister on October 30, the member for Beaver River asked whether Canadians can expect to hear of the appointment of Stan Waters to the Senate of Canada.
As the hon. member is probably aware, Premier Getty wrote to the Prime Minister last October 19 while the Prime Minister was out of the country. In his response to the question last Monday, the Prime Minister indicated that he had not yet had an opportunity to consider the matter. Senate appointments remain the Prime Minister's prerogative. It is only reasonable that he have the time to do so.
The hon. member raised a second issue last Monday. She said, "It is not a matter of when but it is a matter of why not reform the Senate". I would like to take this opportunity to respond on behalf of the government.
In August, 1986, all premiers agreed to defer Senate reform to a second round of constitutional discussions when all governments would once again be present at the constitutional table. Once proclaimed, the Meech Lake Accord will guarantee that Senate reform will be a priority agenda item on future annual constitutional conferences by the First Ministers. The Government of Canada is committed to fundamental Senate reform. The Prime Minister has promised to table a proposal for an elected Senate in the first constitutional conference provided by the Meech Lake Accord.
In the meantime, to reflect the federal government's commitment to pursue this important issue, earlier this year Senator Murray carried out a round of informal bilateral consultations on Senate reform with all provincial governments. So, we share the hon. member's belief that there should be fundamental reform of the Senate. That being said, questions have been raised about Alberta's Senate election initiative.
As I see it, Alberta's initiative raises issues that go well beyond filling one Senate vacancy. It touches on the role of one of our two Houses of Parliament and the broad question of how we should go about reforming the Senate. Some commentators noted that a precedent could be created here. Some have said that this is a good precedent, and that they hope other provinces will adopt Alberta's process. Others, including Alberta Intergov-

Adjournment Debate
ernmental Affairs Minister, James Horsman, have said that they do not favour creating an elected Senate in a piecemeal way. Speaking in the legislative assembly last July 26, Mr. Horsman said that a danger inherent in Alberta's proposal was that: "if every province were to do this we could by about 2020 have entrenched in the Constitution of Canada an elected Senate with its current powers".
Mr. Horsman went on to say that no government in Canada would want to see that happen.
Mr. Horsman raised a legitimate concern. Would there not be implications for relations between the two Houses of Parliament if the Senate became an elected body with its current powers which are virtually equal to those of this House and remain untouched? It is a good question.
What would it mean if Ontario decided to elect Senators to fill its three current vacancies, and eventually Ontario and Quebec elected all 48 of their Senators? Having done this and entrenched their supremacy, what incentive would Ontario and Quebec have to talk about Senate representation and powers?
These are all legitimate questions that merit consideration in light of the national implications of this Alberta innovation. Senate reform is very important to the future of the federation. The federal government is committed to its pursuit following ratification of the Meech Lake Accord. However, it is a complex issue which raises a number of questions that might best be addressed together rather than one at a time as part of an effort to achieve reform in a piecemeal way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 8, 1989