1989-11-27

Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, the House will remember that on Thursday during the discussion on business for the week a request was made that the Prime Minister report to the House on the results of his trip to Russia. I agreed to bring that to the Prime Minister's attention. He does very much wish to report to the House as soon as possible. As you can appreciate, he just returned yesterday and he does have his remarks together. They are being typed now.
What we would like to suggest-and there have been discussions among the parties in order to enable this to be done-is the following. I will put it forward in terms of an understanding rather than asking for a House order if I may.
The understanding would be that we go through Routine Proceedings. The first item of government business is a vote on the Ways and Means proceeding No. 8. I understand that there may be a wish to have a recorded division on that. It is also my understanding that there would be a 15-minute division bell agreed upon and that we would then revert to Statements by Ministers in order to allow the Prime Minister to report to the House at that time.
I think that if there is a general understanding in the House to proceed on that basis I would request that the House do so.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be as co-operative as possible. On the Ways and Means Motion we would just ask for a division rather than a recorded division.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, considering the importance of the Prime Minister's statement and the responses that we will hear from the opposition parties, the New
Democratic Party is quite prepared to forgo a recorded division on the Ways and Means motion to allow the Prime Minister to speak at the earliest opportunity.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to the technical paper on the goods and services tax.
I want to say that presenting this report has been a rather major effort. It was only made possible by some excellent work done by House of Commons staff in the committees branch who worked night and day, as well as those in the printing unit who worked overtime making it possible to have the material available.
The committee is recommending a reduction in the goods and services tax rate and a broadening of the base to make the tax more acceptable, hopefully, to Canadians.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings,.]


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, which has been certified correct by the clerk of petitions.
Actually, there is a long list of petitions, all from western Canadians who point out their concern with the government's intention to proceed with the goods and services tax. This is quite timely in light of the fact that the chairman of the finance committee has just tabled the report.

November 27, 1989
Routine Proceedings
They point out at some length all the concerns they have regarding the tax and the fact that it is basically a very unfair tax. They request that the government come to its senses, go back to the drawing board and devise a tax that is at least fair to the people of Canada.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition on the same subject.
The petitioners who are from British Columbia reject the proposal for a goods and services tax. They ask for a reform of the tax system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.
They want to ensure that there is broad public consensus on a sales tax measure and cause the government to cease with the proposal that will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty on behalf of a number of constituents of my own and constituents of the Minister of National Defence to present a petition.
They call upon the government to reject the the goods and services tax proposal and to put in place a tax which would be more fair and less regressive for all Canadians.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, it is also my duty to present you with petitions sent to me by some of my constituents in Sackville, Port Elgin, Bayfield, Shediac, Grande Digue, Buctouche, Sainte Marie and all the communities in my riding which strongly object to the government's plan to impose a new 9 per cent tax. They say that this tax will be very unjust and a very heavy burden for families. This tax will be hidden and very unfair. The petitioners humbly ask Parliament to reject this new tax.
Mr. Speaker, I also have another petition, which is from residents of Saint Louis and concerns another subject, namely fishing. The signers of this petition ask
the Government to extend its jurisdiction to the whole continental shelf so that the Canadian Government can control all the kinds of fishing that now go on there and so that the government can also regulate the fishery resources which are so vital for the Atlantic communities.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I too stand under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by many people in southwestern Ontario who are totally opposed to the goods and services tax proposed by the government. They call upon the government to withdraw this legislation.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to present a petition signed by many Canadians who are opposed to the goods and services tax. They join with many other Canadians who have expressed their opposition to this tax in so many ways including petitions.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and the honour this morning of presenting to the House of Commons six petitions signed by constituents in my riding. There are hundreds of signatures of people who are essentially opposed to the goods and services tax.
They outline in their petition that this is the thirty-first new tax or tax increase since 1984. They feel it will undermine low and middle income Canadians in our riding and indeed across the country, as well as bring harm to small business structures. They ask in the end, like this party, that the government reject the goods and services tax.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions to present.
The first calls upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax, to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, and to ensure if and when there is broad public consensus on sales tax measures to replace the manufacturers' sales tax that this reform not be used as an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the second petition notes that the government has proposed to tax back old age security and family allowance benefits in part or in their entirety.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to abandon this proposed measure which singles out old age security and family allowance benefits as a tax source tied to the level of income.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 36 with a number of petitions. The first one is on the subject of the goods and services tax and signed by some 40 residents of Revelstoke, Castlegar, Trail, Rossland, Armstrong, and Kamloops, all within the Province of British Columbia.
The petitioners reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax and call upon Parliament to ensure if and when there is broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax that this reform not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab such as they believe the current purpose of the government's GST to be.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I have four other petitions in a long list of petitions which I presented earlier on the subject of VIA Rail.
This time they are from the communities of Revelstoke, New Denver, Nakusp, Fokier, Galena Bay, Beaton, Nelson, Kamloops, Golden and Sicamous in British Columbia, and Calgary, Alberta.
Some 130 petitioners call upon the government to maintain The Canadian line of the VIA Rail system and to abandon plans for the sabotaging of rail passenger service across Canada.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition signed by people from such diverse Ontario communities as Athens, Brockville, Chatham, Cornwall, Dundas, Frankfurt, Hamilton, Massey, Mildmay, North Bay, Prescott, Sault Ste Marie, St. Catharines, Stoney Creek, Sudbury, Temagami, Thunder Bay, Tilbury, Timmins, Toronto, Wallaceburg,
Routine Proceedings
Woodstock, as well as others from the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec.
The petitioners all believe passionately in the sanctity of life. They believe that all human life is precious and should be protected and nurtured from conception. They urge the government to pass legislation that will protect the lives of some 65,000 innocent victims annually.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present 4,413 petitions from people in Calgary northeast and southeast who would like the goods and services tax scrapped because of its inflationary nature and because it is going to create more government.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by residents of Dome Creek in my riding and other communities in B.C.
They are urging the Government of Canada to renew immediately the forest resource agreement between the federal government and the province. I know they would agree with me that it is important we plant real trees so that we do not have to have the plastic ones we have in the House of Commons today.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition to the House of Commons today concerning an issue about which many members of Parliament have been concerned, that is, saving the Rouge Valley. The Rouge Valley is 5,000 acres of precious wilderness property in the northeast part of metro Toronto.
This is of particular importance this week because the metro Toronto council will have before it an agenda item on Wednesday to decide whether the Rouge Valley should be turned into a garbage dump. I would urge members of Parliament, as well as the hundreds of thousands of people across metro Toronto, to tell metro council that this is an unacceptable decision to make. It is outrageous.
This is a beautiful valley. It has endangered wildlife. It is a wilderness spot. It is a beautiful place for hundreds

November 27, 1989
Routine Proceedings
of children who visit each week. Mr. Speaker, I was so pleased that you visited the Rouge Valley just recently.
The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to work with the province of Ontario. The province of Ontario owns about 80 per cent of the 5,000 acres. The petitioners want the Government of Canada to work with the government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to present a petition from a number of residents of Frontier, Saskatchewan who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will effectively protect the life of the unborn child without distinction as to the stage of development.


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present this certified petition on behalf of the minister from Lisgar-Marquette.
It is signed by 52 petitioners who call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will effectively protect the life of the pre-born child without distinction as to stage of development.


Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition signed by 123 constituents and duly certified by the clerk of petitions.
The petitioners express their concern that Bill 178 of the province of Quebec restricts the right of freedom of expression and describes specific recommendations that the Government of Canada might take.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House today to present several petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition I present is on behalf of the Council of Three Fires, Walpole Island First Nation in the riding of Kent. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to fulfil its responsibilities to hundreds of thousands of Canadians and Americans living along Lake St. Clair and stop the dredging of waters of Seaway Island and the
dumping of potentially hazardous sediments into Lake St. Clair, pending the findings of a full and public environmental impact assessment to be ordered by the Minister of the Environment.


Rex Crawford: Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns the goods and services tax. The people of Kent County reject this proposal.


Rex Crawford: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from the people of Kent who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will effectively protect the life of the pre-bom child without distinction as to stage of development.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, every weekend when I return to my riding of Parkdale- High Park I am swamped with more and more petitions from people living in Parkdale-High Park who request this Parliament to cancel the goods and services tax, to reject it outright.
We know the finance committee has recommended reducing the rate from 9 per cent to 7 per cent, but that is not what they want. They are calling on this government to reject the proposed goods and services tax outright.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present this petition, duly certified by the clerk of petitions and signed by many residents of the constituency of Lambton-Middlesex.
They are calling upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen -Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to present to the House a petition under Standing Order 36 containing 596 signatures from the city of Penticton in my riding.
The petitioners ask the government to reject the current proposal for the goods and services tax and ask that we ensure if and when there is a broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax that this reform not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab.
November 27, 1989


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 136,137, and 138.


Mr. Taylor: What percent of first-class mail is posted at each level of the rate structure for first class mail, and within each of these rate levels, what is the percentage by (a) volume (b) revenue generated of (i) individual to individual (ii) individual to corporate or business (iii) corporate or business to individual (iv) corporate or business to corporate or business mailings?


Mr.   Benoit@: Canada Post Corporation does not collect such data on a regular basis. Rather, the market is defined based on different characteristics which relate each market segment to different types of competition. CPC then establishes its share in each market.
Broad indicators of the sectors generating CPC's revenues show that businesses, governments and other institutions contribute approximately 85 percent of the Corporation's total revenues. Almost half of this revenue is generated by Canada Post's largest 1,000 mailers.
ADVERTISING & PROMOTION CAMPAIGN


Mr. Taylor: What was the cost of Canada Post's recent advertising and promotion campaign and the corresponding change of logo and colours, broken down into (a) the total cost, including production, purchase and distribution of the mailing Canada Post sent to its employees, including the video, pin, magazine and any other items in that mailing (b) the total cost, for each province and territory, including production and distribution, of the Canada Post leaflet entitled "Better Mail Service: "Ibrning a commitment into reality" (c) the cost per leaflet (d) the cost of redoing Canada Post's (i) letterhead (ii) new fleet (iii) mailboxes (iv) new employee wardrobe (v) postal outlets (vi) offices (vii) franchises (viii) sub-offices (ix) any other postal facilities with the new logo?
Mr. Benoit TVemblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Expansion and Minister of State
Routine Proceedings
for Science and Technology): Due to the highly competitive nature of our business, costs related to Canada Post's recent advertising and promotion campaign and change of logo and colours are deemed as proprietary.
Over the next five years, the Corporation will proceed in an expeditious and cost-effective manner to converting to the new identity, using its own financial resources. As trucks, uniforms, mailboxes, signs and other corporate-owned articles are replaced, the newly-acquired items will bear the new identity.
In the case of the CPC vehicles, for instance, existing decals will be removed and new decals portraying the new look will be added on a schedule basis over several years and will be produced to the new standards.


Mr. Taylor: For (a) January 1-June 30, 1980 (b) July 1 -December 31 1980 (c) January 1-June 30, 1981 (d) July 1 -December 31, 1981 (e) January 1-June 30,1982(f) July 1 -December 31,1982(g) January 1-June 30,	1983	(h) July	1-December	31,	1983	(i)	January1-June 30,	1984	(j) July	1-December	31,	1984	(k)	January1-June 30,	1985	(1) July	1 -December	31,	1985	(m)	January1 -June 30,	1986	(n) July	1 -December	31,	1986	(o)	January1-June 30,	1987	(p) July	1 -December	31,	1987	(q)	January1 -June 30,	1988	(r) July	1-December	31,	1988	(s)	January
1 - June 30, 1989, what was (i) the total amount spent on lawyers by Canada Post to deal with grievances and arbitrations (ii) the amount spent on lawyers from outside firms (iii) the number of technical objections filed during arbritration hearings by Canada Post (iv) the number of discharge cases referred to arbitration (v) the number of discharge cases relating to medical leave, sick leave or incapacitation referred to arbitration?


Mr.   Benoit@: Canada Post Corporation's accounting systems are not structured in a manner that would allow it to address the Honourable Member's request.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Routine Proceedings



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1989

Hon. Doug Lewis (for Minister of Finance) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income lax Act, laid upon the table on Monday, November 6, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the arrangement made earlier today, not by way of order but by agreement we will revert to Statements by Ministers and call upon the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to report to the House on my visit last week to the Soviet Union where I held extensive discussions with President Gorbachev and Prime Minister Ryzhkov. I also had very useful meetings with a number of important leaders, both government and party, in Kiev and Leningrad. The Secretary of State for External Affairs also held lengthy and constructive meetings with Mr. Shevardnadze.
I want to express my personal gratitude to the leadership and the people of the Soviet Union for the warmth and kindness they extended to all members of the Canadian delegation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This was the first official visit to the Soviet Union by a Canadian Prime Minister in 18 years. In fact this is somewhat misleading because contact between our two nations has in recent years become quite sustained and productive. In 1983, when Mr. Gorbachev was responsible for agriculture, he made his first ever official visit to the west to Canada where he remained for some 10 days on an extensive national tour and of which he speaks with great affection and joy for the people that he met and the personal experiences that he enjoyed.
I visited Moscow less than six months after becoming Prime Minister in March 1985 for the funeral of former General Secretary Chernenko, during which I met with Mr. Gorbachev, then the new Soviet leader.
This high-level contact was followed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs' visit to the U.S.S.R. in April 1985 and Mr. Shevardnadze's return trip to Canada in 1986, and by periodic meetings between the two since, including in New York in September and in Moscow last week.
The minister responsible for the Wheat Board visited the Soviet Union in 1987 to promote the interests of Canadian grains and oilseed producers who have maintained huge sales to the Soviet Union over many years.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture made an important visit to the Soviet Union earlier this year where he attended the third meeting of the Mixed Agricultural Commission since 1985. Former Agriculture Minister John Wise represented Canada at the 1985 and 1987 meetings.
The contacts between the Soviet Union and Canada on an ongoing basis were productive and, as I have indicated, sustained.
My visit to the Soviet Union came at a most critical juncture, at a time of powerful change in that country and of cascading reform throughout eastern Europe. As President Gorbachev said in our meeting: "Our times are changing so fast, are so dynamic that without good personal contacts among leaders it is impossible to build a good relationship". I fully subscribe to that view.

The discussions we had were both frank and very far-reaching. We talked about the economic and political

November 27, 1989

changes now occurring in the Soviet Union and the great significance they have for that country's future.
President Gorbachev was acutely aware of the difficulties he faces in implementing perestroika and glasnost successfully. He is, above all, a realist.
But I was struck by his determination to succeed and by his confidence that success is possible. He considers the course that he has set for transforming the Soviet Union to be right and irreversible. I believe that he is correct.
I also believe, strongly, that it is in everyone's interests, including our own, that he succeed.

The changes that he is seeking to provoke within the Soviet Union are profound and pervasive. Perestroika is not simply about improving the economic performance of the Soviet Union, although that is both urgently wanted and very badly needed. An important new law dealing with economic reform is to be tabled by mid-December. I think Mr. Shevardnadze advised the Secretary of State for External Affairs that it would perhaps be on December 12.
Perestroika is about establishing a new political order based on greater individual freedom and responsibility and on more democratic institutions. Perestroika is about establishing a new political order based on greater individual freedom and responsibility and on more democratic institutions. It is about putting into place a whole new economic structure, based on a greater role for the market, on productivity growth, and on individual motivation and individual reward. It is about designing a new social system and instilling a new way of thinking into the Soviet consciousness based on fundamental attitudinal changes, on diminishing dependence on the state and on greater creativity of thought and independence of action by the individual. President Gorbachev told me that "The revolution we have embarked upon is above all a revolution of the mind, of people's mentality".
Resistance to change runs deep in the Soviet Union. In my judgment, there is no viable alternative to Mr. Gorbachev's plan or to Mr. Gorbachev himself. In politics, change often comes suddenly and with little warning. In public life, no one is indispensable. To the
Routine Proceedings
extent, however, that anyone is indispensable to the ongoing well-being of his own society, it is probably President Gorbachev because of the overwhelming extent to which the entire agenda of reform is identified personally with him, both at home and around the world.
Our discussions also covered in frank detail domestic developments in the Soviet Union that are of great interest to the Canadian people: human rights, religious freedoms, emigration, the rights of nationalities and the very nature of the Soviet federation. The Soviet Union has made very encouraging progress on all of these matters since Mr. Gorbachev came to office.
The fundamentals of the Soviet system are being questioned, often in publicly televised debates by newly-elected deputies and by ordinary citizens throughout the nation. Prominent dissidents and political prisoners have been released from detention and many have been allowed to leave the Soviet Union. For the first time, unofficial groups not connected with the Communist party are being tolerated and encouraged. Permission to emigrate from the Soviet Union, in particular by citizens of the Jewish faith, has increased greatly in recent years, so much so that there is, today, no backlog of family reunification cases between Canada and the Soviet Union.
A new emigration law is now being considered by the Supreme Soviet. Our hosts assured us that it is consistent with the standards on population movement established by the Conference on Security and Co-Operation in Europe. The Soviet authorities also intend to put into place more relaxed regulations on secrecy restrictions which, as we all know in this House, has been the root of many of the remaining "refusnik" cases. I had the opportunity in the Soviet Union to visit briefly with some Jewish refusniks who seek to emigrate to Canada and to Israel.
New regulations on emigration will soon be followed by a new law on religious rights, expected to be submitted to the Supreme Soviet in the near future. We were assured that it would provide the basis as well for a new relationship between church and state in the process of dealing with many of the concerns raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and by myself last week over the treatment of the Pentecostal Church and the Ukrainian Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox

November 27, 1989
Routine Proceedings
Churches and of other religious groups in the Soviet Union.

It has become very clear that the question of nationalities and of ethnic minorities is fundamental to the nature of the Soviet Federation and, ultimately, fundamental to the future of the Soviet Union itself. Problems elsewhere, in other nations, pale in comparison with the tremendous challenge facing President Gorbachev in governing a country of such enormous diversity and profound divisions. We see evidence of those problems every day on television: in Armenia, in Georgia, in Moldavia and elsewhere. The strains in the fabric of the Soviet Federation are serious and no one appears to be more conscious of them than President Gorbachev himself. He indicated to me that he is determined to respond to those strains positively and with imagination before they degenerate further into greater instability.

His resolve to seek greater equity and fairness for nationalities and minorities is equalled by his determination that this new level of social and political justice be found within the federation, a federation that will allow the various republics greater autonomy, particularly in culture, language and the economy.
In our discussions with President Gorbachev and with Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, we also focused on today's often tumultuous international agenda. In the political declaration President Gorbachev and I signed in Moscow six days ago, which Foreign Minister Shevardnadze has subsequently characterized as a "milestone" and as "an intellectual breakthrough" for both nations, the Soviet Union recognized the benefits of change and endorsed the right of countries to make their own way in the world without outside interference by anybody.
The regional conflicts in Central America, southern Africa, Indochina, the Middle East and Afghanistan were covered quite comprehensively, particularly in extensive meetings between Mr. Shevardnadze and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
President Gorbachev and I discussed the rapidly evolving situation in eastern and central Europe very frankly. We reviewed these areas not only in terms of developments unfolding in that part of the world but, equally important, in terms of their impact upon the over-all relationship between East and West.
Change has come to eastern Europe rapidly, unevenly and unpredictably. Every day seems to bring more dramatic news and more unforgettable images: former Czech Prime Minister Alexander Dubcek making a triumphal speech before hundreds of thousands of people in Wenceslaus Square; breaches, at last, in the Berlin Wall as millions stream through to satisfy themselves first hand about western values and western institutions; non-communist political parties exercising power in Poland and the Prime Minister of Poland being received two days ago with warmth and encouragement by President Gorbachev in Moscow; the privatization of economic activity on a growing basis in Hungary; and exciting new freedoms of speech and protest and movement for peoples throughout the east which, for 40 years, has known little of freedom and less of its benefits. The pace of change has become torrential, overwhelming in some ways our capacity to assess the transformation that we are in the process of witnessing.
A revealing insight in this regard appeared yesterday, I thought, in The New York Times where Harvard professor Michael Sandel commented that "the most appropriate response now is not caution or boldness-we are beyond all that-but attentiveness and appreciation because, when history turns this fast, what we want from statesmen are not vain attempts to control events that have a momentum of their own, but that they be alive to the possibilities that these events will leave in their wake."
I think that is important advice from Professor Sandel, and it is advice that the government and the Parliament of Canada, I suspect, will follow.

The world is now clearly departing from a sterile period of East-West confrontation and embarking on one of immensely more fruitful relations, a course that ultimately promises genuine democracy in Eastern Europe, more liberalized trade and investment opportunities across that vast region, more predictable relations with the Soviet Union and profound reductions in the emphasis on defence in all capitals of the world. Eventually, as governments continue to emerge in Eastern
November 27, 1989

Europe that have the freely given support of their people, European stability will be put on a durable basis.
But the transition period will have to be managed carefully. And, in fact, the people of Eastern Europe and the leadership of the U.S.S.R. are handling the changing situation very prudently.
In these swiftly changing circumstances, NATO retains its great importance because it is the locus for discussion of the Western response to political change in the East and for coordinating positions in the crucial conventional arms reduction discussions in Vienna and on the superpower negotiations on strategic weapons in Geneva.
Distinctions need to be made between intentions and military capacity. It should be remembered that the Soviet Union retains enormous conventional and strategic forces. Everyone's security objective is served by a balance in military capacity at progressively lower levels of arms. Both sides want lower levels of arms.
NATO is a political, as well as military, organization and is an indispensable part of the western diplomatic infrastructure. It was clear from my discussions with President Gorbachev that neither sides thinks it is time to abandon any alliances. In fact, President Gorbachev signalled very clearly that it would be imprudent to change alliances or institutions in a manner that could destabilize east-west relations, as eastern Europe goes through a period of such convulsive change.
I proposed to President Gorbachev that we seek to establish a closer relationship between himself and the leaders of the major industrialized western countries. In response to President Gorbachev's interest in integrating the Soviet economy over time more closely into the world trade and payment system, I told him I would propose to my G-7 colleagues that each year's chairman be mandated to discuss with him the ideas and strategies that emerge from the Economic Summit. This would provide him with a regular opportunity to obtain a first-hand report on the preoccupations and interests of the leaders of the principal western governments whose co-ordinated policy approaches have produced in recent years an era of remarkable economic growth and a series
Routine Proceedings
of initiatives that both intrigue and challenge President Gorbachev and about which he asked many questions and some of which he would seek to apply, given the new circumstances he chooses to develop in his own nation.
President Gorbachev warmly welcomed this proposal. [Translation]
Agreement was also reached on developing a closer bilateral consultation process on a range of international issues of mutual concern.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and Mr. Shevardnadze, as well as their officials, will meet more frequently for that purpose.
In Moscow, I also raised with Mr. Gorbachev the Arctic arms control proposals he had set forth in his Murmansk speech several years ago.
I pointed out to him that Mr. Clark had responded to those proposals on several occasions but that we were quite prepared to discuss with the Soviets any refinements they might have to make to their original ideas.
I pointed out, as well, that I continued to believe that current ongoing arms control negotiations between the two superpowers and the two alliances had proven successful and were the best avenues for making progress on these issues.
He understands fully our position and agreed that further review of this issue should be pursued by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and Mr. Shevardnadze.
In terms of bilateral co-operation, last week's visit marked a watershed in our relations.

We signed 14 bilateral agreements-more than had been signed in the previous 20 years-on subjects ranging from international affairs to Arctic co-operation to the environment to military and cultural co-operation to investment protection. Foreign Minister Shevardnadze told Izvestia at the end of last week that the Soviets attach particular significance to the environment agreement because "Canada-was one of the first to place environmental protection on the international agenda and Canada has achieved remarkable success in this area."
Routine Proceedings


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 27, 1989


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Soviets strongly endorse plans for co-operation in the Arctic and our intention to work with the Soviet Union and other countries to ensure a reduction in environmental pollutants that threaten the Arctic ecosystem, above all those that imperil the food chain of the Arctic peoples.
In addition to the 14 agreements, we each undertook to expand government representation in each other's countries, as a result of which the Government of Canada will open a consulate general in Kiev in the Ukraine.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Soviets intend to open a new office in Toronto and discussions will start shortly on our respective plans for those offices. We hope to put our office into operation before long.
I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that the establishment of a new office in Kiev will, I think, go a long way in responding to an increasingly obvious need for Canada to be represented in the capital of the Ukraine.
Nearly one million Canadians trace their roots back to the Ukraine. Many of them still have family there. At present, 35 per cent of the visa applicants at our embassy in Moscow come from the Ukraine. With more relaxed travel restrictions in the Soviet Union, we can expect a substantial increase in human contacts between Canada and the Ukraine.
Moreover, an office of this dimension in Kiev will allow us to tap the commercial and trade potential of the Ukraine, a market of some 52 million people whose economic needs can be responded to by the transfer of Canadian technology, joint venture initiatives and direct equity participation, to say nothing of the transfer of skills, knowledge, and know-how in the area of agriculture where, as the leaders of the Ukraine have pointed out to us, the need and their need is greatest and Canadian expertise is acknowledged to be world class.
The Canadian private sector is also taking an unprecedented interest in the Soviet economy. The Canadian government has been strongly supportive of the private sector as it seeks new economic opportunities in the Soviet Union and new trade and investment niches for Canada.
Our two-way trade has for too long lacked diversification and dynamism and I was delighted to see the enthusiasm and resolve of Canadian business people in Moscow surveying new opportunities and anticipating new challenges, none more enthusiastically than distinguished businessmen like Frank Stronach , Albert Reich-mann, representatives from Lavalin, and other leading firms from British Columbia to Newfoundland which was represented by Vic Young of Fishery Products International.
A broad commercial relationship with the Soviet Union will help us not only to diversify our exports, now largely dominated by grain sales, but also to provide the products and services and technology that will help to support the goals of perestroika by satisfying some of the rising expectations this policy has triggered among the Soviet people.
That is the greatest challenge, I believe, confronting Mr. Gorbachev today, the problem of the rising expectations generated by the enthusiasm with which his reforms were introduced and received by the people. A lot of progress is expected the next day and yesterday in the Soviet Union and he is incapable of delivering as rapidly as he would like on all of these expectations.
That is why it is so important for countries like Canada to come forward in tangible ways with trade missions that sign deals that create new wealth and new opportunities in order to provide him with the support.
I mention, parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, George Co-hon, the chief executive officer of McDonald's who has been working to open the largest McDonald's in the world in the Soviet Union. He placed an ad in the Moscow newspapers for 500 people he wanted to have work in his new restaurant which the Soviet Union believes and hopes can expand to 15 or 20 across the country in short order. However, in the Soviet Union, he put an ad in the newspaper asking for 500 young men and women to seek employment. When we left he had had
14.000	applicants, and they were coming in at the rate of
1.000	a day. I told him that if it did not work out there, he might consider putting it in my riding.
This is the kind of enthusiasm with which the Soviet people are responding to Canadian business people. I think that this kind of attitude is a good, friendly, productive and a very creative one. This is a constructive

and welcome response to the daring and innovative reforms being implemented by the Soviet leadership.
Last Wednesday, in Moscow, I attended with Prime Minister Ryzhkov the inauguration of an organization, the Canada-U.S.S.R. Business Council, that will do much to underpin our new political relationship and to bolster our bilateral commercial ties.
The council includes almost all of the principal Canadian firms with significant current or prospective commercial interests in the Soviet Union and is co-chaired by Albert Reichman, President of Olympia and York, and Alexei Malkevitch, head of the Soviet Chamber of Commerce.

The Canadian business delegation that was in the Soviet Union during my visit numbered about 240 people. A good number of them signed agreements for direct investment, joint ventures or equity participation arrangements.
These agreements, worth one billion dollars, plus, are an extremely important part of building a new relationship between Canada and the Soviet Union.
President Gorbachev made very clear that the U.S.S.R. was not looking for direct aid from the West.
What the Soviet Union wished to have with Canada was a cooperative, mutually beneficial, political, economic and technological relationship because of the many similarities between our two countries, and because of the experience we have in coping with many categories of problems that the U.S.S.R. is now dealing with in a serious way.

For our part, Mr. Speaker, we went to the Soviet Union with the objectives of establishing a broadly-based relationship of confidence with President Gorbachev and his colleagues, of seeking on behalf of all Canadians to respond constructively to the historic changes that the Soviet leader is seeking to make and of bringing about a new beginning in Soviet-Canadian relations.
I believe that we have achieved these objectives. I also hope that, together, we have made a contribution to the building of a more durable international peace, which is
Routine Proceedings
the most important legacy our generation can pass on to our children.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Thrner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, what is happening in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe today is the most important and cataclysmic change in human affairs since the last world war and indeed perhaps since the Soviet revolution itself.
Millions upon millions of Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Russians, East Germans, Bulgarians, Latvians, Estonians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians are demanding freedom, demanding democracy, and they are getting it.
The urge for freedom is unpredictable and finally irresistible. Totalitarian regimes are falling at a staggering rate. They are being shunted aside in the sweep of history. The most remarkable feature about the drama surrounding us that we see every night on television is that so far this popular evolution is being done without violence.
Diplomats are becoming irrelevant, the pundits and experts are at a loss to explain what has happened. Very few of them predicted it. Foreign policy analysts, so used to seeing the world only in terms of the superpowers, have been confounded by what is happening. Leaders and the elites are being toppled. The people are rolling over them all. The tearing down of the Berlin Wall is only the most visible symbol of this demand for freedom.
What this government of ours has failed to grasp so far is that the urge for freedom is exploding; it is bursting out, not only in Berlin, but at almost every level in the East Bloc countries. Yet while the whole of Europe is alive with discussion, as Hungarians and Poles and Czechs are on the streets debating these issues and calling for freedom, we in this Parliament have had no discussion of what our approach should be to these massive, compulsive and unprecedented changes in the world.
The Prime Minister has signed an agreement which he claims will usher in a new era in Canadian-Soviet relations. Yet, it was this Prime Minister whose major foreign policy plank in the last election was to spend billions upon billions of dollars on building a fleet of nuclear powered submarines to protect us from the Soviets.

November 27, 1989
Routine Proceedings
The Minister of Defence still claims that the White Paper on defence is government policy, and that the submarines were cancelled only for economic reasons.
The Prime Minister has made it clear both in the Soviet Union and here that the view of this government is that the cold war is not yet over. Which is it? Are we into a new relationship, or are we still in the cold war? We cannot have two policies on this issue.

Before his official visit, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) failed to consult Canadians. He did not ask the opinion of the Standing Comittee on External Affairs. He did not consult academics, former diplomats or non-governmental organizations. The government behaved much the same as it did regarding Canada's membership in the Organization of American States. But going off course is dangerous, Mr. Speaker. The government is changing the direction of this country's external policy without first consulting Canadians. And it is not just the absence of debate. The fact is, this government has failed to produce a single official document on external affairs policy since it was sworn in.
The Prime Minister would do well to follow Mr. Gorbachev's example by injecting a little glasnost, a little openness into its external affairs policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Since this is only the second speech of the Prime Minister of our country on foreign policy in the House of Commons in the last five years, he should not be surprised if Canadians are not at all sure what the policy of this government is with regard to the unprecedented changes taking place in eastern Europe.
What are the implications for NATO? What are the implications for Canada's position in this alliance? What direction do we want NATO to take? What are the implications for the movement toward 1992 and the so-called economic union of Europe? What about the possible reunification of the two Germanies? These are questions that need to be addressed. These are questions that need to be discussed in this Parliament, not in the Langevin Block, if they are ever discussed at all.
We are happy to see the Soviets' willingness to allow more autonomy in the Baltic States and the Ukraine, and we welcome the opening of the Canadian consulate in Kiev in the Ukraine. We hope that such a move will facilitate the reunification of families of Ukrainian descent in Canada. We hope also that our government policy will be to continue to encourage more autonomy within the Ukraine and the Baltic States.
Many of the agreements signed by the Prime Minister in Moscow were renewals of agreements signed by previous governments, including the 1984 Arctic Scientific Co-operation Agreement. The difference is that previous governments took a leadership role. Mr. Pearson's visit in 1955 as Secretary of State for External Affairs was the first time a major western political figure visited the Soviet Union since the great war.
A 1971 visit by Mr. Trudeau was followed by major cultural, academic and sports exchange agreements, as well as agreements on trade and scientific co-operation.

We welcome the creation of a Canada-U.S.S.R. Business Council and the desire to invest shown by business circles. Businessmen, however, are very realistic. Will they be able to make a profit and bring those profits back to Canada? Will the ruble remain a non-convertible currency? Will the Canadian government provide guarantees for Canadian investments in Soviet Union?
What we find very disturbing, however, is that the government did not offer economic assistance. Because there is a risk. If there is no economic progress, the reform process may abort, not only in the Soviet Union but also in Eastern Europe.
The joint statement by the two governments contains many generalities but no proposals, no initiatives, no studies or any indication of interest in developing Canadian perspectives on arms limitation. Joint approaches to Arctic security shone by their absence. There was no response to Mr. Gorbachev's proposal regarding a peace zone in the Arctic.
In fact, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) insisted on reminding Canadians that Soviet submarines had navigated in Canadian waters, instead of stressing a statement by Mr. Edward Shevardnadze that
November 27, 1989

Soviet submarines would respect Canadian sovereignty in the North.

These are issues that should have been addressed. There are more. The Prime Minister should have put forward serious proposals in several areas. First, Arctic security. In February, 1988,1 called for the creation of a new international regime in the Arctic, in particular the promotion of arms control alternatives. This government has refused to consider any such initiative.
The second area is Arctic sovereignty. We need a joint declaration with the Soviet Union in which they explicitly recognize our sovereignty over Canadian-claimed Arctic waters. The Soviet foreign minister's statement on Soviet submarines hinted at their willingness to support such a declaration.
The third area is Arctic environment. We are pleased to see that Canada will be hosting an Arctic environment conference next year. We are concerned that we do not have in this a clearly developed and co-ordinated policy approach to Arctic issues. Therefore, I call on the government to implement a recent recommendation that an ambassador for circumpolar affairs be named to co-ordinate Canada's Arctic policy.
We need to increase Canada's diplomatic presence in eastern Europe. We have no diplomatic presence in eastern Germany or in Bulgaria at the moment. We should, particularly now in eastern Germany.
Every effort should be made to involve Canadians more frequently and systematically in government policy discussions on important international issues with significant ramifications for them. The government needs to be more open, and that openness should begin right here in the Parliament of Canada where we have had no foreign policy debates. None of the recent initiatives of this government have been taken to the Standing Committee on External Affairs.
Another area is economic assistance to eastern Europe. Most western leaders have recognized the critical importance of a successful reform process in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. They have given generously of their funds to help Poland and Hungary, and it will be forthcoming, no doubt, for other eastern European states undergoing economic and political reform. An unfortunate exception has been Canada, where a paltry
Routine Proceedings
$42 million was offered to Poland and Hungary while other countries were offering hundreds of millions of dollars. Why are we Canadians satisfied to give, as Lech Walesa put it, "a beautiful tie to a corpse"?
When I had the honour with my colleague from Parkdale-High Park to meet Lech Walesa in Toronto, Mr. Walesa said to us that it was important that Canada invest in eastern Europe and in Poland because we had to give the people of Poland-and he was speaking for them at this instance-a clear message of hope. We have to give some sign that Canadians have confidence in the future of the democratic movement in Poland, that there are signs of Canadian enterprise, visible signs of Canadian business, because they want to see their economies reconstructed on the basis of democracy. But time runs out and they need an urgent Canadian and western response to their problems. We must show them that as Canadians we are willing to participate with the Polish, Hungarian, Soviet and East German peoples in their reconstruction and we have to do it in a concrete way.
We did not anticipate or require that the Prime Minister's visit would solve or even address all of the major problems of the world. However, what does stand out in his public declaration so far, including his statement this morning, is that in the hours of discussions and visits not one word was spoken about the events in the world's most populace nation, the other communist superpower, the People's Republic of China. Surely this was a public opportunity for the Prime Minister to elicit support from the Soviets for the movement towards democracy in China.
I would hope that the Prime Minister impressed upon President Gorbachev that the movement toward greater freedom and democracy is not reversible. There can be no return to totalitarian methods either in the Soviet Union or in eastern Europe. I do hope that when he sees President Bush this week he will also impress upon him that the convulsions and transformations in the world demand that the United States encourage economic development and reform in the eastern bloc countries.
Both President Gorbachev and President Bush must understand that when they meet at Malta it must not be merely a replay of Yalta. It is not their world to divide again as they wish. Europeans are determining their own future. People in every part of the globe are demanding a reversal of the arms race and a commitment toward co-operation and peace. I believe that as in the move

November 27, 1989
Routine Proceedings
toward democracy in eastern Europe, the demands of the people will not be denied.
These are tremendously exciting changes occurring in the world. As a middle power with immense goodwill and respect around the globe, Canada has a single opportunity to push for even more freedom, more democracy and more peace throughout the globe. I urge our government not to let us miss that opportunity. We should be leaders in this movement and not merely followers as we have been to date.
All the men, women and children alive on the face of the globe today have spent their entire lives living in the shadow of the threat of war and the spectre of the arms race. We have poverty and suffering because for generations we have spent trillions of dollars on armaments instead of on promoting freedom. We have spent countless decades fighting one another rather than working together. There is no guarantee that this fantastic push for freedom will succeed. But Canadians expect our government to do absolutely everything possible to encourage it and to join in the movement in a very constructive way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for making this report to the House on his historic visit. It is something we would like to see more often.
I think the comments of the Leader of the Official Opposition about the need to involve Parliament more in making foreign policy in Canada is a suggestion that the Prime Minister should listen to, not only with respect to foreign policy but also with respect to other areas as well. There has been a trailing away, if you like, in prime ministerial interest in the House of Commons and we hope that this is the beginning of a new interest in the Chamber.
I would like also to say in the same vein that many of us were distressed at the way in which the decision to join the Organization of American States was arrived at without consultation with the external affairs committee of this House, or with the non-governmental organizations, churches and other groups that have an interest in Central and Latin America.
We hope that with respect to east-west relations, the Prime Minister will take Parliament into its confidence and involve the whole of the Canadian people through Parliament and other organizations in the making of foreign policy. If he did, and if he had done that earlier, I think he would have found that there was a lot of support for the kinds of things that the Prime Minister himself now seems to be considering. In that sense I think the Prime Minister is not only playing catch-up in terms of international relations with other countries but also playing catch-up with the Canadian people who have been ready for a more enlightened approach to east-west relations for some time now.
As was said this morning in a newspaper column regarding the visit, better late than never, and we are happy that the Prime Minister has now grasped what is going on in the world and particularly what is going on in the Soviet Union.
I want to compliment him on elements of the statement. What I have in mind is the relative lack of gloating in the statement, of ideological gloating. I believe it veiy important for those of us in the west not to be seen to be gloating over what has happened in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. This was a point made not so long ago by none other than Zbigniew Breczinski and many others. I say this because I have noticed in speeches made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs a certain amount of what I would call unwarranted ideological gloating.
I think it is important that in this new east-west relationship that the west retain a certain amount of humility. We should keep in mind that our system, whatever its merits, has also been responsible for incredible poverty within our own midst and in the Third World, thanks to a relationship in which wealth is still being transferred in a net way from the poorest countries to the wealthiest countries. We must remember that we too have severe environmental problems and that our society is besieged with meaninglessness and drugs and many of the other things with which other societies are also plagued. We ought to remain humble, if you like, in
November 27, 1989

Routine Proceedings
our approach while, at the same time, welcoming what is going on in other parts of the world.
I also welcome the Prime Minister's proposal with respect to developing a relationship between Mr. Gorbachev and the G-7 group. I think anything which increases personal contact between Mr. Gorbachev and the leaders of the western countries is a good thing and I hope that the Prime Minister can be instrumental in setting up more of those kinds of contacts.
I welcome the fact that when the Prime Minister was there he brought up the issue of the Ukrainian Catholic Church which is of great concern to many people in my riding, in Winnipeg, and in the country in general. I hope that the new consulate which is being set up in Kiev will be instrumental in bringing new opportunities for Canadians of Ukrainian origin to visit the Ukraine, to do business in the Ukraine, and vice versa, and that the new law upcoming in the Soviet Union with respect to relationships between church and state will see a legalization of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, something which many people have hoped for for a long time.
With respect to the Murmansk proposal, I notice in the statement that the Prime Minister says, with respect to the proposal of Mr. Gorbachev for a zone of peace in the Arctic: "Mr. Clark responded to these proposals on several occasions, but the Canadian government is quite prepared to discuss any refinements the Soviet might have to make to their original ideas".
Many people who have paid attention to the Murmansk proposal and to the period thereafter are not aware that this government has made any response except to make what constitutes no response at all.
We do not just want to know what the refinements are that the Soviets might have to their own ideas, we want to know what the Canadian ideas are with respect to peace in the Arctic. We do not have that yet. The statement says that progress on these issues is best left to negotiations between the two superpowers. This is the Yalta mentality that we are trying to overcome, that the world is trying to overcome with respect to seeking international peace and stability.
It is a profound mistake on the part of the government to leave matters pertaining to the Arctic to the context of superpower negotiations or inter-alliance negotiations because there are many things that Canada has a unique responsibility to concern itself with given our unique geo-political situation between the superpowers in the Arctic. This is something that the government does not
yet seem to have appreciated in its full measure. So what are the government's views?
I hope that perhaps today we might hear from the government as to what the Prime Minister thinks of many of the good suggestions that have been made in recent years and, most recently, at a conference sponsored by the Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament on peace and security in the Arctic. There is the whole question of naval arms control and the proliferation of submarine-launched cruise missiles. There was not a mention of it in the statement by the Prime Minister. This area of growing proliferation of nuclear weapons is of increasing concern.
The Prime Minister and the government still seem locked into the view that the only things that are significant in terms of arms control are happening in Europe. What is happening in the Arctic and what is happening in the northern Pacific are things that ought to concern the Canadian government every bit as much as what is happening in Europe.
What is the response of the government to the proposal that there be an Arctic open skies policy? What is the response of the government to the suggestion that we seek-and this is a suggestion that has been made not only by the Soviet Union, but by various Canadian groups and political parties-a demilitarized zone in the Arctic or a nuclear free zone in the Arctic? Has the government got an argument why this would be a bad thing or why this is not something that the Canadian government could be showing some initiative on?
There is the proposal for an Arctic ambassador, or a circumpolar ambassador, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition called it, someone who would concern him or herself directly with Arctic matters. As well, there is the proposal for a conference on security and co-operation in the Arctic, similar to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
I noticed in one of the press reports of the Prime Minister's visit that the language "common search for security" was used in a statement put out by the Prime Minister and Mr. Gorbachev. What is needed now is a bridge from the language of "common search for security" to the language of "common security". It is the concept of common security, which goes back to the Palme Commission report in 1982, that we find the conceptual framework that I think is most appropriate to Canada's situation in the Arctic, sitting as we do between the two superpowers. I would recommend a reading of

November 27, 1989
Routine Proceedings
that document and many others which have followed it, to the Prime Minister.
As I said before, we have a unique responsibility, being between the superpowers, to pursue a common security regime in the Arctic. It is not enough to leave it up to the superpowers, because it is in the context of the relationship between the superpowers that the greatest threat to our sovereignty comes. I think our sovereignty in the Arctic is not any more respected by the United States, perhaps even less so, than is by the Soviet Union. If we are concerned about sovereignty in the Arctic, we have to also be concerned about what the United States might be doing in our north and not just the Soviet Union.
The Prime Minister has made much of the fact that Mr. Gorbachev indicated to him that he would like to see the alliances continue. That may well be the case. That may well may be the view of Mr. Gorbachev. We know it is the view of the Prime Minister. I am sure that Mr. Gorbachev also believes, as we do, that there are a range of issues outside the NATO-Warsaw Pact negotiations with which Canada and the U.S.S.R. should be concerning themselves. Those are the issues which pertain to the Arctic.
As we have said many times before, it is in this context that we urge the Prime Minister and the government to seek a replacement for our relationship with the United States now constituted in NORAD which would give us more independence and more ability to respond to initiatives that are made by the Soviet Union with respect to peace and security in the Arctic.
Within the context of NATO, it seems to me that the Prime Minister should have said something this morning about his statement that the White Paper is outdated. We asked the question of the Minister of National Defence in the House the other day when the Prime Minister was away. Now is the opportunity for the Prime Minister to say what he meant when he said that the White Paper was outdated. What is going to be the follow-up of the government to that fact, a fact which I might say was perceived by many long before the Prime Minister said it was so. But the fact of the matter is the
Prime Minister has said the White Paper is outdated. What will happen now? What will be the process for reviewing Canadian defence and security policy in the follow-up to the Prime Minister's statement?
The Prime Minister is going to Brussels soon. I would recommend to him, on behalf of our party, that in view of the changing world circumstances, in view of the outdatedness of the White Paper, that a couple of things be done now.
We recommend that the Prime Minister commit himself and his government to trying to eliminate the first use policy of nuclear weapons within NATO; that the Prime Minister and his government commit itself to putting at least a moratorium on Canada's participation in the FOFA strategy of NATO, the one which has caused so much trouble for Canadians, and in particular, the Innu people in Labrador; and that the Prime Minister indicate to Canadians that Canada will put an end to cruise testing in Canada and take a different position than it did with respect to the modernization of nuclear weapons in Europe.
Finally, we recommend that Canada should seek, within the context of the mutual balance force reduction negotiations to bring Canadian troops home from Europe, something which I see the Prime Minister has already talked about. Certainly if that can be done in the context of negotiated reductions, that is the way to do it.
If NATO is to become an agent of the transition to a new relationship between east and western Europe, as many believe it can now become, given the changes in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, then I think Canada should become vigorously involved in that change.
We are looking at an entirely new situation in Europe. We are looking at a Europe which is no longer post-war Europe, not only in economic and political terms but also psychologically. I had an opportunity to be there recently and it is clear that there is an entirely new collective self-consciousness in Europe. This is something that I do not think has been fully appreciated in Canada. It means

that the United States will have less influence in Europe, not more.
It means there will be an opening for real Canadian participation of the kind that we have not seen before in shaping the future of Europe. Whether it turns out to be still an east-west relationship with a common security arrangement or whether it turns out to be a larger western Europe with the border between east and west pushed further east, or whether it turns out to be Mr. Gorbachev's common European home from the Atlantic to the Urals, whatever the case may be, it will be an entirely new Europe. The opportunity exists now for Canada to be involved in that in a way that we previously have not. Too often up until now we have simply taken the American view, whatever that happens to be, in NATO.
In the larger context, still, we would like to see Canada be much more active and principled in pushing for a comprehensive ban on all testing of all nuclear weapons and on all chemical weapons. We live in a different world in which many of the things for which there have been arguably reasons for pursuing, various courses of action have disappeared. It seems to me that the Canadian government must now take a different and bolder course.
I notice that the Prime Minister used a quote in which boldness was downplayed and attentiveness and appreciation were regarded positively. I think that is a good quote. I think there are many cases in foreign policy where attentiveness and appreciation is an appropriate first course of action. But there does come a time when boldness is required. Boldness is required in the international scene on the whole question of nuclear arms control. Boldness is also required when the Prime Minister goes to see Mr. Bush in the days ahead, to tell Mr. Bush that it is about time that the United States of America showed the same tolerance in its backyard as the Soviets are now showing in eastern Europe, and to tell Mr. Bush to change American policy in El Salvador and Central America. That seems to be an opportunity for the Prime Minister to be bold and appropriate, all at the same time.
With respect to what is happening in eastern Europe, I think the time has come for bold action to make sure
Routine Proceedings
that the democratic experiments which are happening in eastern Europe now succeed. This is our time to show that the west was not simply crying crocodile tears for the last 40 years, that our statements about the suffering and the oppression of people in Poland and East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were not just strategic statements but that they were sincere statements. When the time comes for us to put our money where our mouth is, we must show that we will put our money where our mouth is, that there will be Canadian action on eastern Europe to make sure that those new governments succeed. That is not something that the Canadian government has done so far to the satisfaction of anyone. I might add, in that respect, that what is important in all of this is that the principle of additionality be respected, i.e. that whatever aid that we may give to eastern Europe not come at the expense of the traditional aid that we have given to Third World countries. There is a very real danger that the south will be left out of this new era in the north vis-a-vis east-west relations.
Finally, because I realize that my time has run out, I think again where boldness is required is on the question of the environment. The time has come to be bold on the environment. I think it is on the environment that finally the differences between east and west, between the Soviet Union and the U.S., and between Canada and the U.S.S.R., will be trivialized in what will come to be the need for planetary solidarity, not alliances, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, but planetary solidarity.
In order to survive and in order for there to be a truly human future, all these differences will have to be trivialized. It is in our common concern about the environment that we get glimpses of what we ought to really mean when we talk about security. What is security, after all, if you cannot breathe the air, drink the water or grow food? The navies, the armies and the air forces of the world are paltry in comparison to the danger which the environmental crisis provides and I hope that soon we will see real boldness and not just attentiveness on the part of the Prime Minister to the environmental crisis.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 61 minutes beginning at one o'clock p.m.

November 27, 1989
Speaker's Ruling



GOVERNMENT ORDERS	[English]


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advance payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: I have certain motions which I must rule on.

There are eleven motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Advance Payments Acts.


SPEAKER'S RULING-MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9 and 11, in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie, cause the Chair considerable procedural difficulty. These motions are attempting to remove the notion of the producer organization paying interest on money that is attributable to advance payments. It would appear that one of the principles of this present bill is to change the law related to the payment of interest. As hon. members are aware, it is not within our established practices to permit amendments that are contrary to the principle of a bill as agreed to by the House of Commons at second reading.
Consequently, in accordance with Beauchesne's fifth Edition, subsection 1 of CITATION 773, I must rule Motions Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9 and 11 out of order.
[Stage Direction]
Motion numbered 5 standing in the name of the Hon. the Minister of agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski)is in a situation that is basically similar to those motions I have just ruled upon. However, motion numbered 5 is rendered acceptable by the fact that it is accompagnied by a recommandation of Her Excellency, the Governor General. Thus, motion numbered 5 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, is attempting to amend the original act. Hon. members know that it is not procedurally acceptable to amend sections of the original act that are not included in an amending bill. Therefore, in accordance with Beauchesne, paragraph 8(b), citation 773, I must rule this motion out of order.
Motions Nos. 7 and 10 are in order and will be debated together, with a vote on Motion No. 7 applying to Motion No. 10.
I shall now put motion numbered 5 to the House.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I obtained a copy of your decision. I think that Motions Nos. 3 and 4 standing in the names of the Hon. Member for MacKenzie (Mr. Althouse) and the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) respectively are also, in the opinion of the Chair, out of order, for lack of the royal recommendation. So, since you did not say so, I thought that you did not intend to allow debate on Motions Nos. 3 and 4.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry for the mistake. The Hon. Member is right. Therefore I want to add to the decision.

Motions Nos. 3 and 4, standing in the name of the hon. members for Mackenzie and Algoma respectively, are identical to Motion No. 5 and will not be selected as, without the royal recommendation, they would be out of order.

I thank the Hon. Member.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would perhaps consider the argument that Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5, rather than requiring the Royal Recommendation in this particular piece of legislation, are simply correcting this legislation to make it the same as Section 9 of the existing act which has the effect, as I read it, of telling producer organizations that have made such advances that the government will stand behind them for any overages exceeding 2 per cent which, I believe, is another way of saying the same thing as do the proposed motions that are before us. I think that the royal recommendation is perhaps unnecessary because there was a section in the existing legislation, namely,
November 27, 1989

Section 9, which does the same thing, in my view, and is,
I think, in part the reason that the Minister of Agriculture proposed Motion No. 6 because that section of the act becomes unnecessary if the change to 2 per cent, which is proposed in Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5, is acted upon.
I understand the usual argument that we cannot reduce the amounts of money but, in this case, the act had already effectively, I believe, reduced that amount of liability to 2 per cent in Section 9 of the existing legislation. So while I am quite prepared to debate the motion under the name of the Minister of Agriculture, I would just simply point out that it seems to me that Section 9 of the existing legislation had already limited the amount of liability that the producer organizations would have had to 2 per cent. The said motions, therefore, are simply trying for consistency in the legislation rather than a reduction of any liability the government may have.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie raises an interesting procedural matter. I should make it very clear to him, to other hon. members and to the public that I understand exactly the point which the hon. member is making and he has made it well.
However, the Chair, as I am sure hon. members will know, is bound by the procedural rules and, as the hon. member for Mackenzie has generously stated, Motion No. 5 in the name of the Minister of Agriculture will deal with the same issue. I think that under the circumstances it would not be appropriate for the Chair to change the ruling. However, I understand the point and I thank the hon. member for raising it.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Masse (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved:: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 21 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"to 2 per cent of the producer's liability".


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, before we start debate on this clause, I would like to indicate to
Government Orders
members of the House that it was understood by all members of the House that the Minister of Agriculture would be here in the House for this debate. Unfortunately, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries from New Zealand is visiting and the Minister is hosting hirti at the present time but intends to be in the House after Question Period and available to take part in this debate.
I just wanted to assure members that he will be here to do that. I am sure they all realize that duties makes these things impossible at certain times.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that your colleagues will not object to the fact that you have made reference to the absence of a minister in debate.


Murray Cardiff: It depends on how you want to put it, Mr. Speaker.
We believe that with this amendment we are changing and improving the bill. The Advance Payments for Crops Act has always been a shared risk program with the producer organizations and historically producer organizations have been responsible for 10 per cent of each advance that has been defaulted to a total of 2 per cent of the total amount advanced.
This amendment will leave producer organizations responsible for only 2 per cent of any advance defaulted, and that is covering both the principal and interest.
Proposed changes to the Bank Act alter reserve requirements for banks and this will make federal guaranteed loans less expensive. In order to be in a position for producer organizations to take full advantage of this provision the guaranteed level will be increased to 98 per cent. The reduced risk to producer organizations from the lower liability limit will allow producers to reduce administration costs.
Smaller producer organizations that do not have financial ability to assume the risk of granting high value advances will now be able to participate on the same basis as the larger and more financially strong producer organizations. This will be particularly important to the horticulture sector where the producer organizations tend to be small and newly formed organizations dealing in specialty crops such as forage seed are also small. We believe that this amendment would greatly increase the benefits to producers.

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
For producer organizations that withhold an amount of the advance to cover their liability, this amendment will increase significantly the amount of cash received by the individual producers.
I would just like to share with the House the names of some of the organizations that this legislation change will help. They include the B.C. Okanagan Fruit Producers' and Shippers Association, the Interior Vegetable Marketing Agency, Vancouver Island Produce Limited, the Alberta Beekeepers' Association, the Alberta Fresh Vegetable Marketing Board, the Peace River Seed Coop Limited, the Saskatchewan Beekeepers' Association, the Saskatchewan Vegetable Growers' Association, the Keystone Vegetable Producers, the Manitoba Com Growers' Association, the St. Lawrence Valley Fruit Growers, Blue Water Storage Limited, Georgian Triangle Apples, the Ontario Beekeepers' Association, Temiskaming Grain Growers, the Association des jardini-ers maraichers, the Co-op Federee de Quebec, the Valley Grain Pool, the New Brunswick Fruit Growers Association, the New Brunswick Potato Agency, the Nova Scotia Potato Marketing Board, the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers Association, the Nova Scotia Grain Marketing Board, the P.E.I. Vegetable Growers' Co-Operative Association and the P.E.I. Grain Growers' Co-operative.
As you can see, this change will improve the operation and viability of many of these producers of crops that are not as large as some of our producers of major commodities of grain and com but it also assists the producers of those commodities greatly and gives those people much less exposure to the sponsoring organization and allows for a greater amount of advance to be made to individual producers. Going to 2 per cent from 10 per cent and withholding 10 per cent for default of the principal makes quite a difference, but when you reduce that to 2 per cent it is considerable and that is a great benefit to the producer. I know we can count on all members of the House to support this amendment.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-36.1 must say this has been one of most cobbled up bills I have ever seen the government introduce. I recall that originally it introduced this bill under Bill C-32 in which it forgot to provide for the loan guarantee to cover the interest
owing to producers under the act. When the government brought the bill back under its present numbering, Bill C-36, it had corrected that mistake but obviously did not make provision for raising the loan guarantee from 90 per cent to 98 per cent so we have before us today a new royal recommendation because it is increasing the obligation of the Government of Canada. We have that amendment before the House and again, under Motion No. 6, we have the government trying to further amend the bill and that, of course, has been ruled out of order by yourself so we really have a cobbling together of a lot of amendments which were not foreseen in the original bill.
We could put it down to the usual screw-ups in which the government is involved, but in this case I think it just boils down to the fact that the government has not thought through what it is doing. Obviously this whole legislation came out of the government's cost-cutting exercise in which it was chopping everything in sight to the extent of some $500 million. This bill, we are told, will save the government some $54 million but it is going to cost the producers a lot more than that. It will cost some producers in this country their farms, their livelihood, their whole situation in Canadian agriculture.
We are not talking about just $27 million of interest available to farmers. We are probably talking about $400 or $500 million worth of cash flow. This provides farmers with cash flow where the interest is paid by the government, so there is no question about the lending institutions providing that to cash flow, especially at market time. We are, however, talking about the losses of hundreds of millions of dollars in the price of commodities because this legislation has the impact of reducing the value of commodities.
For instance, the Ontario Corn Growers' Association estimates that the value to Ontario corn producers is on the ratio of 15 to 1. In other words, if the government provides $1 million worth of loan guarantee or interest free loans, the benefit to producers in being able to market that corn in the winter or spring months actually turns a benefit some 15 times over.
So if there is a million dollars worth of interest-free loan money provided under the crop advance payment system, that results in $15 million worth of benefit. That is just from one little sector, the corn sector.
November 27, 1989

If we look at fruit and vegetables, if we look at soybeans, if we look at the honey producers and the major advantages to the major crops of wheat and barley in the west, then you are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in improved price of crops.
We are extremely disappointed that the government refused to hear from farm groups right across the country which wanted to come before the agriculture committee. We are sure that they will have their hearing before the Senate Committee. The number of farm groups that are opposing this bill is outlined very clearly in an urgent message that was sent to the Prime Minister on October 2 from some 19 or 20 farm organizations including the soybean producers, la Federation des pro-ducteurs agricoles du Quebec, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers' Association, the Keystone Agriculture Producers, the United Grain Growers, the Flax Council of Canada, the Corn Producers, the Western Canadian Pulse Growers and a whole list of other farm groups.
It has been an incredible mix-up all the way along for these producers. The government effectively is killing the program by charging interest. Most groups, like the com producers, estimate that the amount of saving for those with good credit ratings probably amounts to nothing. So who is going to put themselves through all the red tape of this program if they can borrow the money at 1 or 2 per cent above prime on a regular basis?
This amendment provides some improvement to the legislation. It means that a com producer who was getting $30,000 before and had to put up security of $3,000, 10 percent, will have to put up security of only $600 under this amendment. So it improves the bill. I wonder why the government did not put it in the original bill. Clearly, this amendment is a minor improvement to a bill that in general destroys the whole advance payment program because the farmer has to pay the interest. The losses are not only in cash flow at cropping time, the losses, in fact, occur to the value of the crop. The value of crops will be reduced because many producers will have to sell immediately.
We think that the disadvantages to these producer groups are veiy seriously affected and we wonder why the government is unilaterally cutting programs. We have entered into a free trade deal with the United States. The government said that over the seven years it
Government Orders
would negotiate a reduction in subsidies on an equal, equitable and balanced basis. Here we have a major program that provides $400 million or $500 million in assistance to farmers that is being chopped unilaterally. The Americans are not chopping their similar program. Here we have a government destroying a program that, if it were to be reduced at some stage, surely should have been reduced in a negotiation under the subsidy code program that is provided for in the free trade deal in order to have the Americans scale down their support programs.
It is not only in the prairie grain advance payments or the crops advance payments program that the government is unilaterally chopping programs, it is chopping a whole raft of programs, some $500 million dollars this year. If you count the Western Grain Stabilization payments not being made, if you count the special grains program payments not being made this year, you are looking at $2.5 billion in the budget and in the estimates that are cut from previous years.
What the government is doing, essentially, is kind of a scorched earth program, reducing and destroying programs. It does not come right out and say it in this program but that is the end result of this bill. This amendment that is being proposed today will help in some ways, but the over all program is going to be drastically cut because farmers now have to pay the interest on these advance payments whereas in the past they have not had to pay it. Therefore, there was no question about them getting the support. Under this program there is a big question whether they will be able to qualify for this support because they will have to be personally responsible for repaying that loan.
This amendment will help, but the over all program is being destroyed by this bill.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a few moments on Motion No. 5, the change to the percentage required by the producer groups.
The resentment on this particular change in the advance payments by the government would have been much less if the government did not seem to be deliberately moving in a direction which is being felt negatively in rural Canada. The government has deliberately made

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
a decision to abandon some traditional support programs without replacing them with effective alternatives.
This particular bill just happens to be one of the dozens of attacks that rural Canada is feeling from the government and from the situation in which the government has placed rural Canada in the last few years. The elimination of interest-free cash advances is just one of the items upon which the government is moving that is being felt by the rural communities particularly, and in this case the farmers.
The program was in place for a specific purpose and in the case of the Wheat Board grains it was there to allow the orderly marketing of those grains and to assist in the movement of the grain from the farm through the system. In the case of the other alternate crops, the cash advances were an attempt on the part of the farm groups, with the assistance of the government, to take advantage of the best possible price when putting the product on the market. It worked particularly well in the second case.
But now we are asking the farmer to pay interest on this advance loan and in the process of doing that we have almost eliminated that second reason for the advance payments being in place. Whether they become responsible for 2 per cent or not does not make much difference because many farmers are telling me right now that there is no way that they can pay the prime rate plus 2 per cent or prime rate plus 1 per cent, or whatever the government ends up charging for these particular loans. They cannot afford to get a 10 per cent loan in the hope that maybe the price of com or soybeans, or whatever product they are putting on the market, is going to go up by that amount or by a great amount.
If you are getting $6 for your canola right now and you borrow so that you do not have to ship it and it only goes up to $6.50, you are going to be losing money on getting a loan.
As I said before, the government is just adding this to a number of other methods that it is using to attack rural Canada. It has done it by the quota-breaking in the free trade agreement whereby it has allowed more of the products to be imported into Canada, consequently pushing down the price of the product and the ability of the farmer to compete.
Second, the government has put in place a reduction of the industrial milk prices, again an attack on the farmer and his ability to survive.
We have had the commercialization of the Farm Credit Corporation. It does not matter whether you leave 2 per cent liability for the producer in this particular case if you are eliminating the total reason for having the loan at all. So the commercialization of the Farm Credit Corporation is also an attack on rural Canada and the farm group.
The GATT is being used by the United States to attack the development of trade in farm products. There is a great concern out there that by putting the free trade agreement in place we gave the United States another method of attacking the trade in farm products with the United States.
There is a great concern out there as well that the GATT negotiations are going in the wrong direction, that our government is giving in to the definition of subsidies which is going to further harm the production of farm products in Canada.
We have a continuing situation of high interest rates in Canada and those high interest rates are harming the farm community considerably.
The crop insurance program is supposedly being reformed but what is actually happening is that the federal government is withdrawing from crop insurance and is going to make, over a period of time, the farmer himself, the producer himself, responsible for crop insurance, another attack on rural Canada and the farm community-
Over the last four years we have had a number of what the government likes to call user-pay changes in the inspection of meats, grains and other products where the cost of inspection has gone onto the farmer, indirectly in some cases, but in many cases directly, so that the farmer is picking up a larger portion of the cost of getting those products on the market.
In the last few days we had the White Paper presented by the Minister of Agriculture. This White Paper calls into question the very basis of the support programs which have been put in place over the years to make sure that we have orderly marketing and that the farmers can survive in particular parts of the agricultural industry.
November 27, 1989

We have other attacks which are indirect but are just as badly felt. We have the closing of 1,500 rural post offices. Many farmers are now finding themselves driving many more miles, sometimes 30, 40 or even 50 miles to pick up their mail.
We have the shutting down of VIA Rail, also an attack on the farmers of rural Canada. We have an increase in freight rates and we have a definite bias in regional development toward industrialization and against development of farm products and farm processing.
We have, finally, but maybe not least, an attack on the survival of farms because of the goods and services tax. The goods and services tax is going to increase input costs by 9 per cent and that 9 per cent is quite often the margin of profitability in producing a particular crop.
We have all of these attacks, so it does not make much difference whether or not you leave the producers' liability at 2 per cent. If you do all these other things, you are attacking the survival of the farmer and the survival of the farm community.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak very briefly on this amendment. As members of the House can see, the amendment put forward by the Minister of Agriculture is virtually the same as amendments put forward by the member for Algoma and myself. I want to explain to the farm organizations, which noted that there was a discrepancy between the two acts that this bill amends and a certain amount of discrimination, why there is still a 2 per cent form of discrimination against certain commodity groups and certain users of the Advance Payments for Crops Act.
On our part, it is not because we did not think that they should be treated equally. In fact, we think that the Advance Payments for Crops Act should have the same coverage against liabilities as the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. For your information, Mr. Speaker, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, which is the elder of the two, sets out that the Government of Canada will back the lender, in this case the Canadian Wheat Board, to 100 per cent of its losses. But under the Advance Payments for Crops Act the Government of Canada will stand behind the producer organizations for 90 per cent of the losses.
Government Orders
The reason we had introduced amendments to make it 2 per cent was that we read Section 9 of the existing act, which now seems to limit that loss to 2 per cent due to an amendment in 1985. Because we had no way as an opposition, or as it turns out did the government, of opening up Section 9 of the existing act because it was not in these particular amendments proposed in Bill C-36, our only option was to propose a limit down to 2 per cent, a liability of 2 per cent, because that is what is now in existence in Section 9, and we thought we would make it at least consistent throughout the piece.
What we would have preferred would have been the same treatment in the Advance Payments for Crops Act as exists in the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act; that is, government being responsible for 100 per cent of the liabilities on those advances not paid back. Because of the legislative constrictions in being unable to open up Section 9 which would have still been there if we had been able to get the number down to zero, we proposed this. The government apparently copied our amendment, hoping for unanimous consent, and I presume it will probably get it. But that explains to all those organizations that wrote in to point out the discrepancy between the treatment of their groups, made up of producers of commodities other than wheat and barley in the western Wheat Board region as opposed to those producers who are getting loans in the Wheat Board district under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
There will still be some discrimination, it will be reduced to the 2 per cent, only because of Section 9 in the existing legislation which does not permit that to go any lower.
We have had discussions across the floor. Because of the absence of the minister which was alluded to by the Parliamentary Secretary and because there had been agreement by all parties to discuss this bill today on the understanding that the minister would be in attendance, our understanding now is that the minister can be back from his meetings at three o'clock. Since all sides of the House, according to my discussions, have indicated they want to hear the minister at report stage, I think you will find unanimous consent to call it two o'clock and we can continue after Question Period with the minister before us.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, the representative for the NDP, has indicated the direction in which we have discussed, that we might call it two o'clock and continue with the report stage Motions Nos. 7 and 10 at three o'clock when the minister is here. We understand why the minister has to be away but I think it

November 27, 1989
is necessary because of the importance of this bill that we do have the minister here to speak on it. So I think that we would agree to this proposal that we call it two o'clock and continue with the report stage of Bill C-36 at 3 p.m. after Question Period.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, we also would agree to that proposal. I want to indicate that we are prepared to discuss Motions Nos. 7 and 10 if the other parties wish but we would be willing to call it two o'clock now if that is what everyone wants to do. We would give consent to to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robitaille):: Is the House agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think we should make this very clear. There seems to be a provision to postpone continuing the debate on Amendment No. 5, moved by the Minister of Agriculture, until around three o'clock this afternoon, after question period, and then we would deal with Motions 7 and 10, which have been grouped together for debate.
The idea is to allow the Minister of Agriculture to be here for the debate on these two motions, and we agree with this proposal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robitaille):: I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
The House took recess at 1.07 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 24, I had the honour to
attend the opening of the Bayview Memorial Hospital in Advocate, Nova Scotia, a village far removed from the mainstream of Nova Scotian activity.
This beautiful new hospital is the result of a massive fund raising effort which saw $350,000 raised by this tiny community of 800 people. Most people predicted that it just could not be done, but they did not realize the determination and perseverance of the residents, especially that of Mr. Victor Corbin, the fund raising chairman.
Despite economic disappointments the community of Advocate and in fact the entire Parrsboro Shore have fought for their hospitals, fought for their schools, fought for their wharfs, and fought for their communities in a way which reflects their rich heritage of overcoming hardships related to the forests and the sea.
I take my hat off to these special people, and I pledge to support them in any way I can to protect and expand their wonderful communities.

1989 GREY CUP


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the long drought is over. After 23 dry years the Grey Cup has returned to Saskatchewan.
It is with pride, Rider pride, that I join my colleagues from Saskatchewan in exercising the bragging rights that go with the last second victory over Hamilton.
The Roughriders last night were infused with that indomitable prairie spirit. They displayed the determination, dedication, tenacity, and hard work that are characteristic of Saskatchewan people.
Congratulations go to the players, especially Roger Aldag, the veteran from Gull Lake, the coaches, management, and, most important of all, the fans from all over Saskatchewan and Canada who supported the Riders through thick and thin and who now have a much deserved source of Rider pride for years to come-a win in the 1989 Grey Cup, the most exciting Grey Cup game ever played.
November 27, 1989


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT
Mr. Lyle Dean Mac William (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the feature centrefold of the 1989 annual report of the Canadian Dairy Commission shows a pastoral scene of dairy cows grazing beneath a majestic mountainous backdrop.
The caption reads: "The Rockies provide a dramatic setting for this dairy farm in Agassiz, British Columbia". It is indeed a dramatic setting, one I think the residents of Agassiz would find truly astounding.
The government has made many incredible claims, but I did not know that moving mountains was one of of them. Effortlessly, the government has relocated the Rocky Mountains by moving them some 950 kilometres from the B.C.-Alberta border to the Fraser Valley in southwestern B.C.
How can you blame British Columbians for believing that this government does not understand western Canada when it cannot even get its geography straight?
Most governments are content with simply rewriting history, but this government has truly outdone itself by redrawing our geographical as well as our political landscape.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, recently it was learned that the National Capital Council would be charging fees for groups wishing to use its parks and parkways. While I understand that the NCC is trying to make up for the $5 million it had to cut from its annual budget, and while I favour fees as a means of maintaining these same parks and parkways, I strongly feel that exceptions to the rule must take place.
Every consideration should be given to local groups and charities so that they can continue to hold events and fund raisers which are essential to the quality of life in the National Capital Region.
Furthermore, I object to the manner in which the public became aware that the NCC had implemented a user fee program. Again, we see the secrecy and closed door decisions that seem to epitomise the National
Capital Commission. While the decision to charge the fees was made secretly in September, unfortunately groups only recently learned of the new fees when they inquired about using the parks and parkways.
The NCC should be made to understand that decisions such as these should be reached in consultation with the public and, if and when a decision is finally reached, the NCC should make known the decision as soon as possible. Waiting two months before doing so is simply irresponsible.
The NCC's motto appears to be: "When the going gets tough, do it secretly and behind closed doors and try to implement the decision as quietly as possible".

1989 GREY CUP


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, they said THAT a bumblebee is incapable of flight. They also said that Saskatchewan could not support a professional football team. They said THAT Saskatchewan would likely never again win the Grey Cup.
Well they are all wrong. The Grey Cup is back in Saskatchewan and Regina after a tremendous team effort and the most exciting football game in North America.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, "Regina the Queen" continues to be green.


MULTICULTURALISM
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, last week the House learned that a Montreal firm distributed a yellow page directory which contained an advertisement that replaced the word "Italian" with the word "Mafia".
The Canadian Italian community, which is an integral and proud member of our Canadian family, does not merit that offensive and shameful slap for it undermines its place in Canada and its contributions to this country.

If it were some sort of joke played by some individual before the directory was published, we might sympathize with the regrets expressed by the company. But not to take exception to this directory, which will be found in

November 27, 1989
millions of Canadian homes, will be as great an error as the one just made, if not greater.

This affront, which has dogged our community for far too long and which undermines our value of citizenship and multiculturalism, must not be tolerated whatsoever.
Only when there is a strong result to right this wrong will we see an eventual stop to this regrettable behaviour. Otherwise it will go on and on and on. In regard to this repugnant five letter word, the Canadian Italian community has just had about enough of it.


CHARITABLE DONATIONS
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Emmerick Sashegyi. a constituent from Thunder Bay-Nipigon, recently brought to my attention his concerns about the impact of the government's changes to income tax policy on charitable donations in Canada. I want to share them with you, Mr. Speaker, because he puts it very succinctly: The newly introduced system of allowing only 17 per cent tax credit on the first $250 of donations and only 29 per cent on the balance of one's donation is "a blow below the belt" to all charitable organizations in Canada.
He carries on: "I have always been a willing donor to charitable causes" but because of this "government's relentless drive towards tightening the tax screws, I am being forced now to set priorities-this will inevitably disappoint some of the usual recipients of my cheques who will have to do without my financial support in future".
Surely the government will allow all Canadians who make charitable donations the opportunity of a proper tax credit. Why should these worth-while charities in Canada have to suffer because of the government's ruling on this matter?


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in the Journal de Montreal of November 25, journalist Serge Vleminckx comments on the deplorable incidents in university hockey this way: "Quebecers victims of racism."
On Sunday, November 12, 1989, in a game involving the Patriotes of the Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres and Waterloo, Tony Crisp, son of Terry Crisp, coach of the Calgary Flames, insulted his opponents and showed disrespect for all Quebecers by a racist act in which he got down on his knees and elbows on the ice to imitate a frog leaping. He did this several times during the game. The Patriots were revolted by this act, but won the game 4-3.
Mr. Speaker, the least we can say is that it is unacceptable for leaders and referees of the Ontario university hockey league to encourage such a contemptuous attitude by their silence.


SEXUAL ABUSE
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, last week a County Court judge in British Columbia gave a suspended sentence to a man who admitted to the sexual abuse of a three year old. The judge's reasoning was that the man was intoxicated at the time and the three year old victim was sexually aggressive.
One in four girls in this country will be sexually abused by the time they reach 18 years. As many as 40 per cent of victims are under the age of six. There can be no excuse for a judge to be so ignorant of the implications of sexual abuse that he would rule in this outrageous manner. More important, blaming the child victim for the actions of a man in a position of power over her is unconscionable.
I intend to call on the Canadian Judicial Council to conduct a full inquiry into this matter. I call on the
November 27, 1989

government to take immediate steps to ensure that members of the judiciary are made aware of the horrific effects of child sexual abuse and ask that the Minister of Justice clearly advise Canadians that the government will not condone such ignorance on the reality of child sexual abuse on the bench.


FINANCE
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: 
FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion was asked by my colleague, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, if he could give the House a list of how many strip clubs were financed by his department. The minister responded, and I quote:
I would gladly tell the hon. member about one called the Hideout
in Cornwall, Ontario, the constituency of Ed Lumley which in
March of 1983, when Ed Lumley was the minister responsible for
FBDB, became a strip joint.
The minister did not have the courtesy to inform my colleague in the House of all the facts. Two FBDB loans were granted to the Hideout, one in 1976 and the other in 1978. At both times the Hideout was a country and western club. It changed to a strip club in 1983.
The hon. Ed Lumley became responsible for the FBDB in 1982, which was after these loans were made. It is regretful that the current minister responsible for FBDB tries to portray an image of propriety but fails to
present all the facts in this particular case and attempts to tarnish the reputation of a previous minister of the Crown.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has announced that it plans to shut down the McKeman postal outlet in the Maurice Pharmacy on December 1, one month before Christmas. This postal outlet has served my constituents for over 10 years.
The pharmacy changed ownership November 1 and Canada Post offered the new owner, Mr. Eugene Bara-bash, a post office franchise for the price of $40,000.
As you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Barabash has taken on considerable debt and cannot afford to take on more right now. He will be in a position to buy a franchise two years from now.
Canada Post is bullying him by threatening to sell the franchise to another business although there are no takers. Some 1,000 residents have signed letters and petitions protesting this malicious action by Canada Post.
I call upon Canada Post to renew the existing contract for a period of two years and not to improve service by shutting down a post office one month before Christmas, affecting thousands of residents of Edmonton Strathcona.

1989 GREY CUP


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Hamilton Mountain I rise today in the House to congratulate the Saskatchewan Roughriders on their 43-40 victory of the Hamilton Tiger Cats.
The 1989 Grey Cup left Canadians on the edge of their seats until the last seconds of the game when the foot of Saskatchewan field goal kicker, Dave Ridgeway, secured the win for Saskatchewan with seven seconds on the clock.
It was football at its finest, and it was played in the true spirit of Canadian sportsmanship. Being from Hamilton my loyalty and support naturally lie with the Tiger Cats, yet the Saskatchewan Roughriders have not won a Grey Cut since 1966.

Oral Questions
The people of Hamilton, in fact all people of Canada, congratulate the Roughriders on their 1989 Grey Cup victory.


AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last, I had the pleasure of accompanying the Minister of Transport in Vancouver when he announced the awarding of contracts for the Canadian Automatic Air Traffic System better known as CAATS.
This project brings to Canada two very important commodities, investment dollars and high technology.
The lead contract of $380 million went to Hughes Aircraft of Canada Limited. Hughes will provide the technical foundation upon which the $660 million CAATS project will be built. The CAATS technology will be tailor-made for Canada. Emphasis will be placed on versatility of design and of use.
Judy Lindsay summed it up nicely in Saturday's Vancouver Sun when she wrote:
We could have spent years trying to develop this expertise on our own: Technology transfer is a heck of a lot faster.
Hughes plans to develop this high technology and export it to the world from its base in western Canada. Hughes anticipates the creation of an initial 300 jobs. This should grow to 2,000 Canadian jobs by the mid-1990s as a result of expected international sales in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Yet again this government is showing its commitment to western Canada. The development of high technology in the west helps to diversify and strengthen the regional and national economies.
This is another example of the government's commitment to foster foreign investment, international trade, and economic development.

1989 GREY CUP


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker,
I want to join my colleagues in congratulating the Saskatchewan Roughriders on their tremendous win in the Grey Cup yesterday.
It is only the second time the history of the team that Saskatchewan has won the Grey Cup. The first time was back in 1966.
What I want to do today is congratulate most of all the fans in the province. The Roughriders are a community owned team, and the fans have supported the team for many, many long years without the reward of the Grey Cup.
I also want to congratulate the coach of the team, Mr. John Gregory, for the tremendous job he has done. I congratulate the quarterback, Mr. Kent Austin Ridgeway, for his field goal and all the players for a tremendous effort.
I can assure Your Honour that today there is tremendous Rider pride in every small town, city, village and farm in the Province of Saskatchewan for a cup that was well deserved and a cup that was well won.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
With Eastern Europe at a crossroads today in history Canadians must do everything we can to assist the reform movement, to assist the tens of millions of people pushing for freedom in a number of countries. In order to make that urge for freedom realistic we have to ensure that there is some opportunity for economic success.
Our government has promised only $42 million to Poland and Hungary, which pales by comparison with commitments made by other western nations to these countries.
Why has Canada so far failed to provide our proportionate share of aid to Poland and Hungary? Where are the serious offers of economic help and a commitment to serious investment in Poland, the Soviet Union, Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia?
When, incidentally, will Canada have a diplomatic presence in East Germany and in Bulgaria?


Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, referred this morning to our contribution to Poland, and he referred to an earlier comment by Mr. Walesa.
He forgot the comment that Mr. Walesa made at his press conference as he left Ottawa, saying that he was deeply impressed by the commitment of this government to the well-being of the people of Poland and that he was very, very grateful for the leadership and the strong support that the government and the people of Canada provided the people of Poland.
He said that but of course the facts just provided to the House by the Leader of the Opposition are, to understate the case, very incomplete.
In point of fact the $42 million is a one-year commitment which compares very favourably on a per capita basis with amounts now being considered by the Senate and the Congress of the United States.
Moreover, it does not take into consideration the fact that Canada is the fourth largest creditor of Poland, the debt being $2.6 billion, and in the process of rescheduling Canada will probably save over the next 18 months the people of Poland some hundreds of millions of dollars in hard currency. That is very appreciated by the Prime Minister of Poland and by Mr. Walesa and all others who believe that we have an obligation to provide this kind of assistance.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians will remember what Lech Walesa said, that our efforts so far to Poland are like placing a beautiful tie on a corpse.
The government's White Paper on defence, still defended by the minister of defence, was misguided when it was introduced and is now completely out of date.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the political declaration he signed in Moscow with President Gorbachev now represents a complete contradiction of the whole message behind the government's White Paper on defence?
When will he give a more up to date view of his government's policy both by way of a policy paper on defence and a policy paper on whatever is his current foreign policy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition would come back and refer to the statement of Mr. Walesa about the Canadian contributions "placing a tie on a corpse" which he made in the morning to a parliamentary committee and which in the afternoon at a press conference across the street he very substantially modified and corrected. He paid a great compliment to the government of the people of Canada for its generosity and he expressed profound gratitude. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition continues to denigrate the efforts of the people of Canada to help the people of Poland.
With regard to the political declaration that was signed, I refer to a statement by Minister Shevardnadze in an interview that he granted Isvestia last Friday where he said and I quote:
The political declaration signed by the leaders of our states is an intellectual and political breakthrough into the new, interdependent world which has left the obstructions of the "cold war" behind and is confidently looking into the future. A document of this calibre and significance could emerge only in conditions of perestroika in the Soviet Union and in fundamental changes in the surrounding world.
That is exactly the position of the Government of Canada. That is why we were able to conclude this historic document and that is why I count on my right hon. friend for further support as we try to proceed with confidence-building initiatives such as the open-skies conference that will be held in Canada on February 12 next, due to the insistence and the hard work of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think what Canadians recognize is that in appreciating what is happening in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, they are miles ahead of their government and they want their government to get up to date.
Perhaps the Prime Minister might be good enough to forward a copy of the declaration which he has recited to the Minister of National Defence so that he can have his colleague up to date on the current posture of his government.

Mr. Speaker, in the political statement the Prime Minister signed with the Soviet Union, and earlier in his speech this morning, the Prime Minister did not say a word about security in the Arctic. He made no definite proposal about demilitarizing this region. In this morning's speech, the Prime Minister failed to make a serious proposal on behalf of this country, in response to a

Oral Questions
proposal for creating a peace zone made two years ago by President Gorbachev. After talking about co-operation in the Arctic with the Soviet Union, why was the Prime Minister unable to advance any new ideas for disarmament in the Arctic?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, here again, the Leader of the Opposition was not-and by the way, since he insists on raising these issues, I will read this quote from The Globe and Mail of November 14, which should put an end to further arguments. It says:

Yesterday afternoon, however, after lunching with Prime Minister
Brian Mulroney, Mr. Walesa said he was "taken aback by the
courage" and substantial assistance Canada had offered. "The Prime
Minister has given us a very strong political commitment".
When the Leader of the Opposition quotes, he should quote completely and not selectively.

His allegations were inaccurate. And it was just this morning, when I said that in Moscow, I also discussed with Mr. Gorbachev the proposals he had made in his speech in Murmansk several years ago, about arms control in the Arctic. I pointed out that Mr. Clark had responded to his proposals on several occasions, but that we were entirely prepared to discuss with the Soviets a number of refinements they might wish to add to their original proposals. I also told Mr. Gorbachev that I continued to think that the present permanent talks on arms control between the two superpowers and the two alliances had been productive and would remain the best way to make any progress in this area. This completely rebutes the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. We are talking about a situation where the Canadian government, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has reacted firmly and quickly, and as a result-


John Napier Turner: Not at all!


Martin Brian Mulroney: He says: "Not at all". Mr. Gorbachev instructed Mr. Shevardnadze, in our presence, to start discussions with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, an event that the Leader of the Opposition
should welcome today with enthusiasm, instead of denigrating Canada's efforts.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance must have some idea today what Canadians felt like when they were hit with his goods and services tax proposal. He has been blindsided today by Blenkam. I would like to ask him a question.
The House committee on finance has now brought in its recommendations.the Conservative majority is recommending that we reduce the tax on $1 million homes and increase the tax on $100,000 homes. Will the Minister of Finance tell us today whether he can support a 5 per cent tax on subsidized housing, low income housing and senior citizen housing, or is he prepared to clear up the chaos and confusion that has been created in this country as a result of this report and tell us that he is going to reject this proposal to impose a 5 per cent tax on every roof on every house and on every other residence in this country.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on any specific element of the finance committee majority proposals. They are, I think, a very useful piece of work in terms of looking at the broad range of things which can or cannot be done as far as the GST proposal is concerned. I am grateful to them for the range of recommendations that they have made and I think it is a productive part of the whole tax reform proposal.
What did disappoint me, quite frankly, was the total cop-out on the part of the Liberal minority report which was full of criticisms but had no alternatives, no productive suggestions as to how to move forward with the GST proposal.
What puzzles me is that in the last Parliament when they had finance critics that spoke out in a responsible way, they stated: "The Liberal Party acknowledges that the existing sales tax must be reformed. A broader based sales tax would stimulate economic growth. The Liberal Party is not opposed to the introduction of a new sales tax". Raymond Gameau said: "Proceeding immediately with the sales tax reform is important. We would manage to make our tax system more progressive and still maintain lower tax rates".
November 27, 1989

The current Whip of the House, I hasten to remind him, said: "A multi-stage type of sales tax sounds to me like an idea which the government should have proposed when it brought in fiscal reform. In addition to proposing it, it should have implemented it".
We are going to implement this tax. We are appreciative of those who are giving us positive proposals for reform, not the reactionary work that is being done by the Liberal party in its response to the sales tax system.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I think the minority report reflects the views of Canadians and sooner or later the Minister of Finance will recognize that or he will go the way of his predecessor in New Zealand and become the minister of police.

Mr. Speaker, Conservative Members sitting on the Finance Committee have recommended that the government impose a reduced goods and services tax on homes worth 1 million dollars and at the same time increase the tax on homes worth $100,000.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this: Will the Minister of Finance today advise Canadians that at least as far as proposing a tax on all homes, all residences in Canada is concerned, he is going to reject that? Or does he intend to support the Tory Members on the Finance Committee who want this tax to apply to all residences across the country?


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are some 86 separate recommendations by the Conservative majority on the finance committee. The hon. member is asking me to identify and comment specifically on one. I think that he understands the fact that the GST proposal is a proposal for a sales tax system. It is not just one tax or one rebate. It is a broad proposal to make the sales tax system fair, more effective and more productive in terms of creating new jobs.
I am not going to respond to a question on one specific proposal. I will review the whole of the finance committee report. Once that is done, I will make a specific response on the whole report.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can at least respond to some
Oral Questions
basic mathematics. Will the minister confirm that the chairman of the finance committee is really starting a full-scale war on the first-time home buyer in this country by suggesting that there be an increase in taxes in comparison to the technical paper by $5,000 on a $100,000 home, by $8,000 on a $160,000 home, but a cut of $40,000 on a $1 million mansion. Will the Minister of Finance confirm that, and will he agree that the chairman of the finance committee is even more regressive, more conservative and more repugnant than the minister himself.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to my hon. friend that he should not tempt me in that way.
I have listened to the critics of both opposition parties.
I appreciate the support that they are giving to the government's proposal on sales tax reform. I hope that support will continue as we move into the legislative process.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have another question for the minister of evasion, Mr. Speaker. I will give him one more chance.
The chairman of the finance committee and the Conservative majority are saying that the number of dollars for the tax credit for low-income people in this country should be cut by one half, from $2.4 billion a year to $1.2 billion. Like the minister, the chairman does not want the index to be a credit for the poor.
Will the minister agree that in terms of treating the poor in this country, the chairman of the finance committee is even more mean-spirited, even more greedy than the minister himself by cutting back or suggesting we cut back on the tax credit for the poor by some 50 per cent, making the poor in this country even poorer and will he reject that recommendation as well?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should be reviewing the arithmetic on this. I have not gone through this carefully, but my understanding is that the logic behind this is as the rate has dropped from 9 per cent to 7 per cent so has the need to offset the impacts of sales tax reform in the hands of low-income Canadians so that there is a balance here. I believe that that is the rationale for what the Conservative majority in the finance committee proposed.

Oral Questions


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the finance committee has also copped out in guaranteeing that the existing manufacturers' sales tax be passed on to the consumer.
I know the minister was not able to guarantee us that the existing MST would be passed on to the consumer. I want to know whether the minister will stand in his place and assure us that there will be some guarantee, some mechanism, that if he proceeds with this bill that the existing manufacturers' sales tax will indeed be passed on to the consumer. If he cannot do that, will he do the sensible thing and listen to 87 per cent of the people out there who say "no tax, no GST" and withdraw the proposition.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to what the polls have said. The polls are really reflecting a simple question: "Do you support a 9 per cent GST?" Obviously, if it is not put in any context, the answer to that question is as you would expect.
What if I put the question to Canadians: "Would you support a tax that is currently a hidden tax on exports? Would you support a tax which penalizes Canadian production, one that imposes one-third less tax on imports? Would you support a hidden tax that is deeply hidden in the manufacturing process? Would you support a tax that is complex, that requires 22,000 separate deals for the 75,000 taxpayers to make it work? Would you support a tax that is subject to a large amount of tax avoidance which is what the existing federal sales tax is?" I think we would get a very different response because the goods and services tax is designed to address each of those five separate problems with the existing system. That is why the majority members on the finance committee have supported a change to the goods and services tax. That is why this government is committed to proceeding with that proposal.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister going back to his statement this morning on his visit to the Soviet Union.
I think the Prime Minister will agree that one of the most important ways in which this country and others can
support the liberalization taking place in the Soviet Union is to have it become a member of a world trading community, particularly the General Agreement on Thriffs and Trade.
Can the Prime Minister tell us if during his discussions with Mr. Gorbachev he offered that Canada would support the involvement of the Soviet Union in the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, either as an observer or as a full participant? Perhaps more important, when he visits the United States this week, will he press the United States administration to drop its present opposition to Soviet Union involvement in the GATT as a way of welcoming the Soviet Union as part of the world trading community?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, we put forward the view that the Soviet Union might be interested in observer status at the GATT as a step toward a greater degree of participation in the international economy.
We put forward the view that the outgoing chairman of the industrialized summit should meet every year with President Gorbachev to exchange views and policy prescriptions as to how this integration might best come about.
I am not aware of any hostility by the United States whatsoever to this suggestion. The general view, I believe, is quite supportive. It is certainly a matter that I will raise with President Bush as we explore all possible avenues that would liberalize and improve the relationships between the east and west, but in the process to provide some real tangible assistance from the west to the east as the Soviet Union proceeds with its program of historic reform.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, there may not be hostility, but there is opposition. The stated position of the United States has been to oppose the membership or involvement of the Soviet Union in the GATT. I simply ask the Prime Minister if he intends to press his colleague, the United States President to drop that opposition, as he said, as a gesture of the new kind of economic regime we are in.
The question I would like to pose to him is more directly related to the interests of Canada. As you know, the agricultural trade between our two countries is perhaps the most essential link between the two.
November 27, 1989

This year there has not been any indication of major Soviet grain purchases from this country, causing widespread speculation or inquietude among the grain farmers and the shipping industry. Did the Prime Minister discuss the ongoing relationship of Canada and the Soviet Union on the grain trade? Can he tell us whether the Soviet Union will be making an announcement of a major grain purchase from Canada this year? Did the Prime Minister discuss the necessity of having another long-term grain agreement signed and ratified with the Soviet Union after the present one expires in a year's time?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I had extensive discussions with President Gorbachev and Prime Minister Ryzhkov with respect to the agricultural situation generally and the desirability of maintaining the grain sales from Canada to the Soviet Union. We have agreed to work very closely on a process that, hopefully, will ensure that that continues.
They were very grateful for the visit of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture. They asked us to consider some innovative thoughts as to how the Government of Canada and the Canadian agricultural producers could participate more actively in the process of expanding economic opportunities for us in the Soviet Union while at the same time bringing about beneficial results for Soviet Union consumers.
I suppose the best answer to my hon. friend is to tell him that the priority outside of East-West relations that was given by the Soviet Union and responded to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself was the field of agriculture and how this could be developed and expanded. I responded on behalf of the Government of Canada and on behalf of the agricultural producers of Canada with great enthusiasm. I gave them the assurance that we are going to work with them very closely to improve our market share.
Oral Questions ARCTIC POLICY


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister announced with great fanfare a new series of Arctic-related initiatives during his visit to the U.S.S.R. We all remember the last time a similar attempt was made by the Secretary of State back in 1985. Many of the initiatives announced then by the Secretary of State have either been stalled indefinitely or have never been implemented.
Will the Prime Minister assure this House that these latest initiatives will be fully implemented, and to that end will he accept the recommendation that my leader made this morning to appoint an ambassador of circumpolar affairs to co-ordinate Canada's arctic policy?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the references by the hon. member to undertakings that were given in 1985 have to do with actions that this government would take to establish Canada's sovereignty in the north, actions that we have taken, actions that had not been taken by previous Liberal governments United States that would guarantee our sovereignty with respect to the transit through northern waters of U.S. vessels. That also has been done. We have signed a number of agreements with the Soviet Union on which we look forward to acting.
In addition to that, the House may be interested in what I think is one of the significant developments of the discussions in Moscow. When the Prime Minister asked Mr. Gorbachev to be more forthcoming, to be more detailed in his suggestions in the Murmansk speech, which was a fairly general speech at the time, Mr. Gorbachev replied by indicating that he would want the matter to be under more regular review between myself as Canadian foreign minister and Mr. Shevardnadze.
We agreed to that immediately because we think that will provide us with the opportunity to make proposals and provide the Soviets with the opportunity to make proposals, and as well provide an occasion for them to be looked at on a very high level.
I have one last comment quickly in response to the question. To give credit where it is due with respect to the proposal for an ambassador I think that came from a

November 27, 1989
Oral Questions
the proposal for an ambassador I think that came from a recent conference sponsored by the Centre for Arms Control here in Ottawa. I have arranged for a meeting sometime in the next few weeks with the chairman of that centre, and I look forward to discussing the proposals of that conference, including the question of an ambassador who might be involved particularly in circumpolar affairs.


BALTIC STATES
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister and again pertains to his visit to the Soviet Union.
Canada has never recognized the annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union. Prior to his visit with President Gorbachev, the Prime Minister indicated that the matter would be brought up in the normal course of his visit.
Did the Prime Minister raise the future of the Baltic States with the President of the Soviet Union, and did he receive any assurance that the Soviet Union will allow Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to hold free elections without any outside interference from Moscow?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, during my meetings with Mr. Shevardnadze, I raised that question very directly. I indicated the position that successive Canadian governments have taken with regard to our refusal to accept the de jure status of the Baltic States in the Soviet Union.
I also made it clear that we were watching very closely, both governments were, Parliament was and Canadians of origin in the Baltic States, the attitude of the Soviet government toward developments in those regions, and that we would be particularly concerned if there were to be anything resembling a "crackdown" was the word I used. Mr. Shevardnadze replied categorically saying there would be no crackdown. I found it interesting that not only did he say that the foreign ministry was intending none but he was specific to say that the police were intending none, the army was intending none. I think that is a significant statement and a very helpful development in response to the issue being raised directly by Canada at those meetings in Moscow.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Eric Gullage, Minister responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Collin J. Moyle, New Zealand Minister of Agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EL SALVADOR
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that one of the things all of us share about events happening in eastern Europe is that the Soviet Union has decided to allow people who live in its geographical backyard to determine their own futures, politically and economically.
The Prime Minister will be soon visiting President Bush of the United States. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to say today to the House that he intends to suggest to Mr. Bush that it is about time the Americans took the same view toward their backyard in central America and stopped the military aid to El Salvador, to the people who are actually running that country, the military, so that peace could finally be negotiated and the violence come to an end in El Salvador.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that there is great concern in this House and across the country about the situation in El Salvador which is now, in effect, a civil war. It also goes without saying that Canada has to explore every avenue open to us, and there are better things that we can do than simply give advice to other countries as to what their policy would be doing.
I had the opportunity since coming back on the weekend to consult with my colleague, the Minister for External Relations, and senior officials of the department. We have begun close consultations with the OAS.
November 27, 1989

I will be in touch with the foreign ministers of both Venezuela and Costa Rica later today because they are involved in an effort right now to try to bring some resolution to the situation.
I intend to call in for a meeting, I hope this week, some of the Canadians who have been on the ground in El Salvador in recent days, some of whom the Government of Canada has helped to secure freedom so they could come back. We think that their advice will be valuable to us.
We intend also to make representations to a number of governments and organizations in the region, including obviously the Government of El Salvador, the Government of Cuba, and we intend to be speaking to representatives of the FMLN on a senior public servant level.
When the Prime Minister meets President Bush later this week, he is naturally going to draw attention to three elements that are of particular concern to Canada. One, the lives that are being lost. Second, the very grave threat to human rights in the region. Third, the grave threat that has now been created to the possibility of success of the peace plan, including the United Nations ONUCA activities. The Prime Minister will be raising that with President Bush, and we will be working with Americans and other members of the Organization of American States to try to bring peace to El Salvador.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government gives advice to all kinds of countries. The Canadian government has given advice for 40 years to the Soviet Union with respect to eastern Europe. Fortunately, it has now heeded that advice.
Why is there this exemption for the United States? Why is it that we cannot entertain the notion of giving advice to the United States of America, of stating the Canadian position on American aid to the military in El Salvador?
I ask this question of the Prime Minister, with all due respect to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who will not be meeting with Mr. Bush, what does he, the Prime Minister, intend to say about continuing military aid to El Salvador and the destruction that it involves?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I plan to tell the President of the United States
Oral Questions
what the Secretary of State for External Affairs very eloquently stated, which is exactly the position of the Government of Canada.
I will also draw to his attention a story in The Toronto Star for November 24, where it states "The Nicaraguan Envoy lauds Canadian Peace Efforts". The quote from the ambassador-


Mr. Tobin:: We are talking about El Salvador.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, it deals with El Salvador.
"Canada has the will to be helpful in Central America and, most important, it has publicly stated that it sees a political solution and not a military solution".
Here is the Nicaraguan envoy lauding Canadian peace efforts. I know that my hon. friend will celebrate this good news and will want me to convey that to the President of the United States, which I will be happy to do.


FINANCE
Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the chairman of the standing committee on finance. Today, the finance committee submitted its report supporting in principle a GST. While its recommendation to cut the proposed GST from 9 per cent to 7 per cent is encouraging and it is in the right direction, the people of Macleod want to know when the finance committee will start listening to Canadians on cutting government spending. In Short-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may be trying to work a substantive question into a procedural one, but I do not think he has quite succeeded in doing so.
The hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence.


ARMS REDUCTION
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Earlier in the day, the Prime Minister noted the need to distinguish between good intentions and military capacity in the face of foreign policy changes coming from the USSR.

November 27, 1989
Oral Questions
The Soviet Union has already provided a positive response to three recommendations of the panel on Arctic arms control made before a public forum, the Canada-USSR conference on Arctic co-operation four weeks ago regarding security and sovereignty in the Arctic.
Will the Prime Minister make a commitment to this House that Canada too will give a similar response and that in the spirit of building, as he calls it, a new and durable peace Canada will push for the adoption of other panel recommendations that include the establishment of a central Arctic demilitarized zone and promotion of verification procedures to ensure superpower compliance in the area?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I indicated a few moments ago that I have asked my office to arrange a meeting between myself and the chairman of the agency which organized that panel. We intend to take a very careful look at all of its recommendations.
But let me make a point very clear. We believe that the world has found in the INF negotiations the great advantage, if we are serious about getting levels of arms down, of respecting and working within an alliance to alliance framework. That is also a view that has now been recognized by the Soviet Union, by Mr. Shevardnadze in our discussions, a view indeed reinforced by Mr. Gorbachev's observations to the Prime Minister that this would not be the time, this would be precisely the wrong time to undermine alliances.
Having those questions negotiated on an alliance to alliance basis obviously does not preclude them being discussed between countries that have a particular interest, as Canada and the Soviet Union do. That is why Canada responded quickly to the suggestion by Mr. Gorbachev that it would be useful to have very high level continuing meetings between Mr. Shevardnadze and myself to look at any proposals respecting the Arctic that might come from the Soviet side or that might come from the Canadian side, always on the understanding that any negotiations would occur on an alliance basis because that is the way that negotiations lead to real reduction in weapons.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is better late than never, but Canada has already demonstrated its ability to act without being prompted by its allies when it rejected the nuclear submarine option, as a number of experts have observed. Furthermore, the Prime Minister acknowledged that his government's policy on national defence and external affairs is no longer up to date and that a thorough reassessment is necessary. Will the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that in the course of this process, he will consult the committees of the House, the various groups concerned and the experts in the field, and could he indicate the timeframe within which this reassessment will take place?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I made no statements of the kind my hon. friend mentioned in his preamble. He is assuming that a number of newspaper articles are a faithful reflection of my statements, while the opposite is true.
I clearly mentioned the position of the Canadian government and referred to the political statement signed by Mr. Gorbachev and myself. The 14 agreements indicate our intention, on behalf of all Canadians, to give bilateral relations between Canada and the Soviet Union a new start. However, the Minister has already said, and I have as well, that NATO solidarity is a component that is absolutely essential to the future of arms reduction talks, both in the conventional and strategic sphere. We have no intention of ignoring our alliances and neither does Mr. Gorbachev.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative majority GST report has suggested that a 5 per cent tax be levied on all housing sales in Canada. In Canada, five million resale homes are financed every year.
We have been told that the GST is a one-shot cost. Yet, over five million families annually will face higher mortgage costs. Every month higher payments will be their problem.
Will the minister commit today to reject this proposal of taxing resale housing which would leave Canada the

only country in the western world with a tax on resale housing. In fact, will the minister agree this tax is so flawed that it should-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put his question. The hon. minister.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated I am not going to comment piecemeal on specific recommendations of the report.
What I would say is that the cost of mortgage financing is related very much to the level of interest rates and the level of inflation. We have an inflationary problem in this country. We are dealing with it both through monetary policy and fiscal policy, and we must continue to deal with it in that way.
I do want to take the opportunity to point out that the whole of the economy has a role to play here in terms of demanding less from the economy either through price or through wage settlements, and it is only as we work together and get these inflationary pressures under a greater degree of control will we be able to able to bring down the cost of financing over-all, and particularly the cost of financing for homes.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative majority of the House of Commons Finance Committee has also recommended that we abolish the rebates on the construction of subsidized housing and rental units by non-profit organizations.
I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Housing. Is he prepared to stand up and assume his responsibilities as the Minister responsible for Housing and reject this particular proposal out of hand? Better still, is he prepared to assume his responsibilities in the housing sector and tell the Minister of Finance to scrap the tax because of the adverse reactions that this tax will have on the housing sector.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance made it very clear today that we would not be commenting on specific proposals until we had a chance to analyse the entire report.
Oral Questions
The biggest disappointment I had was the Liberal presentation which did not have one original idea as to what we should do with the tax. Not one. What a cop-out.


JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that in recent weeks serious questions have been raised with respect to the independence and integrity of the administration of justice and, in particular, the absolute requirement that there be no political interference in the operations of the RCMP.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister to take this opportunity to clarify to the House precisely what role was played by his former principal secretary, Bernard Roy, with respect to the RCMP investigation in the Michel Gravel corruption case? As well, could the Prime Minister clarify precisely the nature of representations made by his former principal secretary, Peter White, with respect to the Richard Grise matter, particularly in view of the concerns raised about the letter that was apparently written on November 8 to the RCMP. What role was played by the principal secretaries of the Prime Minister in both of these very sensitive RCMP investigations?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, those matters have been answered in the House before. I want to quote for my hon. friend from the comments of Mr. Inkster at the committee when he said:
The investigations, I am advised, have been carried out thoroughly
and completely, all without any political interference.
He then goes on to say:
I am advised, Mr. Kaplan, that we received no such call from Bernard
Roy.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Michel Gravel was charged in 1986 and pleaded guilty in February, 1989 to 15 charges of corruption, I would like the Prime Minister to tell the people of Canada precisely how much money from the Conservative Party of Canada went to his legal fees-

Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has evidence of anything like that, he can make it by way of a charge, but not by way of a preamble.


POINT OF ORDER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from the member for Macleod attempting to rise to ask a question of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance.
I would like to ask the Chair to advise the House why the hon. member was asked to return to his seat? It appears to us that his preamble certainly was no longer than any preambles we have heard on any number of occasions from experienced members on that side of the House; preambles which include, multiple questions, charges and innuendo. Here we have a member getting up to ask a single question and he is asked to return to his seat. We would like some clarification.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I should say to the parliamentary secretary that since the member for Macleod attempted to ask his question, I have discussed the matter with him.
Second, I have suggested to him that with some judicious adjustments, the question might well be in order. The hon. member was not cut off because of the length of the preamble, which I must say to his very great credit, was very succinct and was short. It serves as an example to all of the members in this House.
The hon. member was cut off by the Chair because in asking a question to the chairperson of a committee, that question has to involve the procedures in the committee, either past, present or anticipated. I may have misheard the question. The fault may well lie with the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Mr. Speaker:: Modesty forbids me from asking for a vote on this.
In any event, the intervention of the Chair was on that procedural ground. Rightly or wrongly, I did not see the question as moving to a procedural matter and I would hope that perhaps the hon. member could come back and-which I think no doubt is a very important question-rephrase it in such a way that the Chair would have no difficulty in accepting it.
I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary and I thank the hon. member for Macleod for his very great understanding. I apologize if there has been any embarrassment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advanced Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advanced Payments Act, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 5.
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I had the floor when the House suspended and I do not wish to hold it unduly. I understand that we have a tacit agreement in the House, since the minister is now here, to move very quickly to a minister for the short period that he will be available to the House. I do not want to take away time from other members.
Perhaps we could get right to it, if that is the understanding, and begin by asking the minister to briefly justify the move to take away the interest free cash advances which have been part of the scene in western Canada since John Diefenbaker was Prime Minister. The rest of the country received them some time later but they have been a part of the agricultural scene for a very long time. They are also a fact of life in our competing countries, particularly in the United States, and we have great difficulty understanding the rationale for cancelling them.
A couple of years ago there was a move by the government, by regulation, to deem the loans received through the Cash Advance Act as a loan for tax purposes, rather than as income. That opened the ground work for a possible charge that people were taking advances, turning them into investments and using interest free money to gain income. That was not possible when the advance was considered to be income on the year it was taken. As long as advances were considered income as well, there was no abuse of the
November 27, 1989

program because people only borrowed enough money to pay their bills and to keep current, because to do otherwise would have changed their tax position for that year.
I wonder if the minister would explain why they have made this change, in light of his own government causing the problem that his parliamentary secretary described as being one of the reasons for the change. We heard from witnesses that the amount saved, some $27 million, would very likely be offset by increased payments to the Agricultural Stabilization Act and other programs. In fact, the very day that the bill was reported back from committee, the government brought in the Supplementary Estimates, asking for another $25 million to augment the Agricultural Stabilization Act. This gives more credence to the argument that was made by producers of fruits and vegetables from across the country, but most particularly from groups in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.
I will stop with those two basic questions. Why is the government doing this? If it was having a problem, why did it not simply go back to deeming the advances to be income, as had been the case through the long period of practical use of the program?
Second, since the program does not seem to be really saving the government any money anyway, why did it bring it in? There seems to be an offsetting amount of agricultural stabilization money required because of the depressing effect that removal of this program will have on the markets.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, when reasoning, one would draw the conclusion that this is not going to have an impact on the financial well-being of the farmers because what he is suggesting is what we take away on the one hand will be given on the other. So I am not sure what his point is.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You should have listened.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I did listen very carefully and perhaps you might want to listen to your comments, or reread them, because they do not really make sense in that regard. When you are talking about the financial impact upon the producer, you are saying because-
Government Orders


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Once you depress the price, the price is depressed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, he said what we are taking away in terms of support for the interest-free cash advances the ASA which will in reality not have an over-all bearing on the producer.
I do not share that view and I want the hon. member to know even though he was trying to make a convincing argument I do not believe that rationale.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Its not my argument, its the argument of the farmers who wrote in.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Now the hon. member is blaming it on the farmers-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: But I believe it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And now he believes it. Well, okay. Now we know where he stands.
What we have here is a budgetary item. It was included in the budget on April 27 which was approved by this House. As a result of that, the legislation that flows from the approval of the budget has to be implemented.
At that time the Minister of Finance outlined the very serious financial situation that Canadians face, the large and growing public debt for which all of us has to bear some responsibility. I know that the members opposite would like to shift the burden and blame on to this particular government which inherited a $200 billion national debt, $200 billion in fiscal year 1984-1985. It has been growing ever since because of the tremendous cost in servicing the debt.
Lest there be any doubt as to how this debt was accumulated let me point out that I came to this House 21 years ago. The last time we had a balanced budget was, I believe, in 1969. There were successive Liberal governments in office at that particular time. We got into office in 1979 and tried to reverse that trend. The NDP and the Liberals kicked us out and since that time, from 1980 to 1984, the debt rose by about $100 billion. That is the legacy we have had to deal with, that is what we are trying to deal with.
We have been more than balancing the budget on government programs. That is for sure. We have a surplus. The hon. member would not understand that. After listening to his rationale for opposing this, I am not sure he would understand it.

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
As the Minister of Finance pointed out, the debt is accumulating at the rate of $80 million a day or half a billion dollars a week. All Canadians, including agricultural producers, who are taxpayers as well, view this with grave concern. We as members of a government and members of Parliament have to deal with this issue. Everyone is being asked to share in that particular burden.
The other reason that this proposal is being advanced at this time is the fact that the interest-free advances as they are presently in place have had the effect of distorting markets and subsequently have had the effect of lost sales. The impact of that has had the effect of scaling down or even closing oilseed processing facilities and it is to some extent having an impact upon our ability to be a reliable supplier of grains and oilseeds.
You know what happens when Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of grain and oilseeds becomes tarnished. It takes many years to build up that image of reliability and anything that is done that tampers with that has a tremendous cost not only on markets today but markets in the future.
The result of this had the effect of holding back product for an unreasonable period of time and thereby the loss of sales and markets. As a matter of fact, the 1988-89 crop year was an example where farmers literally held canola off the market for the entire year. The result was lost sales, the closing down of canola processing plants and the scaling back of canola processing plants.
I have a letter-


An Hon. Member:: Put it under the Wheat Board.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I do not know what that has to do with the Wheat Board. Just because there are some organizations and producers that want the freedom to market their product in the way they desire, certainly the NDP should not take offence at that. In eastern Europe they are making great progress in developing their own freedoms and liberties. These guys would like to go back to the dark ages. That should be a lesson to them. The United Oil Seeds Products, for example, said in a letter to me on October 30, and I quote:
It is our view that the interest-free advances have distorted markets
by allowing farmers the financial strength to hold product off the
market for unreasonable periods of time. The 1988-89 crop year was a good example where fanners held canola off the market for the entire year.
This particular canola processing plant has been closed down for eight months. Jobs have been lost, delivery opportunities have been lost for those farmers who want to deliver. These people across the way have the luxury of criticizing everything that we try to do that is constructive. They would rather play politics with this issue. By their stalling and filibustering on this particular bill, they have denied farmers the opportunity to take advantage of the facility of advance payments.


An Hon. Member:: Why didn't you answer the question?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member asked me why we are doing this and I am in the process of answering. I know that it disturbs him very much.
The Manitoba Wheat Pool wrote a similar letter to me in February, 1989. They said:
The Advance Payments for Crops Act has been a major benefit to the producers in the past when the delivery system was taxed to the limit to allow marketable grains into commercial positions.
The delivery opportunities have changed during the past few years and there are generally fairly high opening quotas on oilseeds and within a reasonably short time there has been space to accept deliveries into the system. The crushing industry in western Canada is in a position now to accommodate a sizeable delivery shortly following harvest. The original reasons to have advance payments for the oilseeds has, to some extent, disappeared.
The ability of the producer to get some financing without delivering the product (even though there is space and opportunity to do so) is creating some difficulties for the crushing industry and for the export marketers. Producers, with an advance payment, are holding stocks at the farm hoping to achieve a higher price later in the year. As you may well appreciate, this is shorting both the crushing industry and the export market. In many cases, markets are being missed or lost, never to be recovered.
Those are the reasons. Quite clearly, only 2 per cent of all canola produced in western Canada was covered by an advance. This is too small an amount to substantiate the point. The producer organization is considering changing the marketing system to rectify this problem. The pools have since backed off. That is what I hear.
So, here we are again. The situation, since it has become an issue, is one of to and fro, but the fact of the matter still remains that there has been distortion and dislocation in the market-place. That, together with the fact that this was a budgetary item, is clearly a reason for
November 27, 1989

this particular initiative to be advanced at this particular time.
I should say as well that the issue of safety nets, stabilization programs and the kinds of support systems we need to support agriculture is something that is going to be considered in a very comprehensive way during the course of the policy review. I would hope that things such as this could be considered at that particular time.
In the final analysis, the idea is to improve the mechanisms in our programs to ensure that producers have the opportunity to rely upon support systems and safety nets while at the same time reading the market signals and making their decisions on that basis; and making their decisions based upon the knowledge that they will have some shield of protection which is really the bottom line in advancing the policy review, particularly in the field of safety nets.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: My understanding was that we would handle this section like we do committee of the whole House, since the minister was unable to attend the committee stage, and that a series of questions would, therefore, be permitted.


Maurice Brydon Foster: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assume that we are on Motion No. 5.1 would like to comment on it in light of the minister's remarks.
I was very interested in the Minister of Agriculture's comments in regard to Bill C-36. He talked about agriculture producers being very concerned about debt because the provisions of this bill provide very little financial support, especially at cropping time, and this is being taken away.
My concern is that support is not only being taken away, but the government is taking it away unilaterally. There was an understanding with our trading partners in the United States, with whom the government signed an agreement a year ago, that the support programs and subsidies outlined in that free trade agreement would be reduced and there would be a negotiated reduction.
Government Orders
Clearly, there has been no negotiating in that regard. This is just a straight removal of a major program which is of major benefit to Canadian producers. It provided some $27 million a year, which provided $300 million or $400 million in cash flow for those producers. They are very concerned about their own debt and how they will be able to cope with it with this program removed.
The minister quoted a couple of groups which he thought were supporting his position. If we look at the letter sent to the Prime Minister on October 2, we see that some 20 farm groups across the country are opposing the government's position. The government majority in the legislative committee on Bill C-36 refused to allow them all to make their presentations. Keystone Agricultural Producers, the United Grain Growers, the Flax Council of Canada, the Ontario Corn Producers, the Ontario Soybean Producers, the Manitoba Pulse Producers, oppose this proposed legislation by the government.
When the minister is quoting who supports it, he selectively forgets who is opposing it. He mentioned the canola producers in the prairies. I would just like, for his information, to quote a letter from Max Pond, President of the Manitoba Canola Producers, dated October 20, when this bill was being debated, in which he says: "We would like to encourage your continued support for the reinstatement of interest-free provisions on the cash advance program. Without reinstatement of the said provision, the program holds little benefit for Canadian farmers. With respect to oilseeds, the interest-free cash advance has contributed to orderly marketing".
This directly opposes what the minister said just a few minutes ago.
The letter goes on; "It contributes to orderly delivery by moving the pressure on producers to sell at harvest at a time when prices tend to turn downwards.
Further, one of our board members happens to be the person responsible for administering the Canola Cash Advance Program offered under the Prairie Canola Growers' Council. His calculations show that with the fee which must be charged to cover the cost of administering the program, the true cost of the advance would be prime plus at least 1 per cent to 2 per cent because the administration fee is a fixed amount no matter the size of the loan".

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
The shorter the period for which the loan is held and the smaller the amount borrowed, the higher the actual interest rate becomes, making it more economical for farmers under those circumstances to borrow directly from a lending institution. As a result, the cash advance will lose all usefulness.
Clearly, the Canola Producers from Manitoba and other areas are opposed to this, as are practically every other group.
One area that the minister has not dealt with, and I do not know whether he has really focused on it, is the importance of improving the value of the crop harvested. The Ontario Corn Producers have calculated that the cost-benefit ratio is 15 to one. For instance, in 1987-88 they estimate that for the cost of the program, a little over $1 million, the benefit to producers was some $16 million.
Obviously, this is a good program that the government should not be cutting out at this time and I would hope that the minister will still change his mind. It is a program that has great advantage to it. Our American friends have not indicated that they are going to do away with their similar program. Surely, if this is going to be negotiated away, it should not be at a time when net farm incomes are dropping anywhere from 20 to 38 per cent as they are in various parts of the country this year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have to bring to the attention of members, that some members have spoken already. We are on report stage. Each member has 10 minutes to speak. The hon. member for Algoma has spoken twice now. I can recognize the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam and then we should go on to the next grouping of motions for all those who wish to speak. We will then put the question and then go into third reading. Every member will then be able to make a speech again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, while it was not a House order, I understand that there was an understanding among House leaders that hon. members would be allowed to put questions similar to a committee of the whole process and that I would respond to them. I am certainly prepared to do that but I am at your beck and call, Sir.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must have unanimous consent. If I have unanimous consent then I will go along with the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member, I would submit that these amendments will improve the orderly marketing of agriculture commodities in Canada. Farmers will still have the ability to have advance payments.
As a matter of fact, the amounts will be increased. They will be able to make those arrangements to carry crops from harvest time to delivery. In fact, the improvements with regard to this flexibility and the security would provide greater opportunity to merchandise their product in such a way that they could use this facility in a proper fashion.
I think it is important that the decisions are made on market signals and sound business principles rather than simply on the basis of managing a financial portfolio. They will still be able to use the provision to help smooth out the seasonal price fluctuations. They will still be able to use this facility for those farmers who want to prepay their fertilizer bills before the end of the year. They will still have the guarantee. The guarantee level is being increased to 98 per cent from 90 per cent, including the interest.
My sense is, quite frankly, that the system will be improved and there will be a built in discipline. Interest rates will be negotiated at anywhere from one to three percentage points below prime. Producers now want this facility to be used so that they can get on with the business of running their farms.
Let us talk about support for the agriculture industry. In 1984-85 this federal government committed $2.8 billion to Canadian agriculture. In 1985-86 it was $3 billion. In 1986-87 it was $4.4 billion. In 1987-88 it was $6 billion and in 1988-89 it was $4.5 billion, for a total of roughly $20.8 billion provided by the federal government to support agriculture; for drought, crop insurance, dairy subsidy, Canadian Wheat Board losses, advance payments and the agricultural stabilization program.
When we look at what has been done to the grain and oilseeds sector for that same period of time, 1984-85 to
November 27, 1989

1988-89, a total of $11,777 billion, almost $12 billion, was provided to the grain and oilseeds sector.
With regard to supporting agriculture, I just looked at the editorial page of the Ontario Farm Women's Network News Letter of June, 1989, where it was pointed out that it was rather unbelievable that the money spent by the provincial government of Ontario on agriculture was no more than 1.25 per cent of the total budget. Of the total budget, Mr. Speaker, 1.25 per cent. The hon. member will agree that agriculture is pretty important to the province of Ontario. It is, but it certainly is not a priority with that provincial government.
In the last year, 1987-88, the federal government poured $2.1 billion into the province of Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan government put in $166 million. Federal government support was 93 per cent while Saskatchewan's was 7 per cent.
In 1987-88 the Manitoba government put in $72 million while the federal government put in almost $800 million. The ratio was 92 per cent federal, 8 per cent provincial.
Alberta put in $445 million while the federal government put in $1.3 billion for a ratio of 25 per cent versus 75 per cent in favour of the federal government.
Those are not small picayune figures. Here we are talking about a measure that is less than $20 million compared to billions and billions of dollars that we have poured into agriculture to support the family farm, the rural communities and everything associated with agriculture. It showed up in the 1988 realized net income which reached an all-time high in spite of all the difficulties.
Alberta, for example, exceeded $1 billion for the first time in history. Saskatchewan was the highest at over $1 billion since 1981. Quebec averaged over $900 million in realized net income between the period 1985 to 1988. Ontario achieved a realized net income in agriculture of $1.4 billion, the highest record ever achieved by the agricultural industry of Ontario.
To suggest that this government is drawing back and withholding support for agriculture is absolute nonsense because the facts and figures belie that. I will challenge anyone to argue with these figures because the facts are clearly there. We have supported agriculture in an unprecedented fashion and the farmers of Canada know it. But there comes a time when there has to be a little bit of pulling back, a little bit of belt-tightening and, like all other good citizens, we are asking the farmers to
Government Orders
share in that process. Now what could be more fair than that?
What the farmers are asking today is for us to get on with the business of governing and get this piece of legislation passed so that they can get on and make the cash advances, hopefully before Christmas. The opposition have seized upon this opportunity to try to make political hay. They have not hurt us, they are only hurting themselves and the farmers of Canada. I would ask that they cease and desist and get on with the business of passing this legislation.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be very explicit in my question to the minister. Hopefully it can be answered with a simple yes or no. I have before me a letter from the B.C. Vegetable Marketing Commission. In that letter the commission says that the APFC program is very useful. However, the elimination of interest-free advance payments will more than likely render the entire program inadequate to meet the producers' requirements.
Can the minister advise the B.C. Vegetable Marketing Commission, which has expressed this grave concern, if he is planning to eliminate the interest-free advance payment plan which would be devastating to that industry?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can answer that question herself. It would be provided for in this legislation.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the farmers will be glad to know they are doing so well. I found it very difficult to believe that the Minister of Agriculture is suggesting that this advance payments program, if there is interest charged on it, can take the place of an interest-free program.
I am going to use canola as an example because it is something I know is a major crop in the minister's home area. In the canola industry right now there is enough canola in place, backed up, unpriced, to last well into January or February.
The farmers in my area and in the minister's area are delivering canola at the present price of $5. There is no guarantee that within the next three months there is going to be any increase in canola. Even if the advance had been in place, those farmers could not afford to pay the interest, prime plus one or two or whatever the government decides to put on that, over a period of time on the hope that maybe the price will go up enough in the next couple of months. Only if canola was under the Wheat Board, where the price would level off for the

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
year, would it be possible to do that at that particular time. It cannot be done under this present system.
While we are talking about money, two years ago the government backed off of the two-price wheat system at the rate of $270 million a year, about one-tenth of what it costs to keep the advance payments interest free. Why is some of that money not being used? Why is a portion of that money not used to allow this, at least for this year?
We have legislation that is in place that could be used. The government is withholding that money now under legislation that is in place and could be used. I know the minister tries to blame the opposition for this not being through, but he does have the instrument by which the money could be sent out. Why not use some of this money and let it go?
If the minister wants to talk about changing the legislation, next year is a good enough time to do it. Pass it now but let them have their money when they need it under the circumstances which they have planned for.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member, I think that one of the reasons that the back-up in canola deliveries is as he described is the fact that this legislation has not been available and has not been able to be utilized by the producers. He said the legislation could be used. Yes, it could be used if the members opposite had got on with the business of allowing the bill to go through.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Interest free right now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know they do not support the bill, but that is no reason to hold the farmers to ransom and to hijack the farmers. The fact of the matter is that this provision was passed when the budget was passed and it has to be implemented. The back-up is caused-and I know my hon. friend will take issue with this-I am sure, in large part by virtue of the fact that they saw fit, and it is their right to do so, to withhold passage of this legislation, to delay it. I think that is regrettable, particularly because after the budget had
been passed, it became a fait accompli and it was going to become a fact of life.
They should not have misled farmers into believing that there would have been some deviation from that. Notice was served in April that this provision was going to be withdrawn. We had hoped that through the co-operation of members opposite we would be able to get this bill through, hopefully before the end of June, and if not the end of June at least by the end of September. They chose not to and so we have this kind of chaotic condition.
The hon. member never listens. He talked about the fact that farmers could not afford prime plus 1, 2 or 3 per cent. I said just the opposite. I said it would be prime less 1 to 3 per cent. That is what we are really talking about.
He wants to talk about canola being under the Canadian Wheat Board. That is another issue. It is an issue for another day. I know what the hon. member's position on that would be. I am not sure what the position of the producers is. It varies from area to area and from year to year.
I know that hon. members opposite are opposed to this legislation and they certainly have every right to oppose it, but I would plead with them to allow us to get on with the job so that the facility that is enshrined in here can be used and the farmers will be able to take advantage of it.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister a question. In view of the fact that he has said that the opposition parties have held up this bill, I think we should follow this through in sequence. The original bill was tabled, I believe, on June 26 or 27. The budget was brought in in late April. The bill had to be withdrawn, as he is well aware. This particular bill, Bill C-36, was re-introduced in the House on October 3 and that is when the debate commenced.


Fernand Robichaud: So it couldn't be passed in September, could it?


Ralph Ferguson: There is no way it could have been passed in September. As a matter of fact, five months after the budget he saw fit to introduce the bill in a form that they felt could be accepted by the House. Consequently, the delay was not caused by the opposition
November 27, 1989

parties. We are within a period of less than two months and we are going to vote on final reading this afternoon. He certainly cannot suggest to us that it was held up in committee either because it went through committee very expeditiously in view of the content of the bill.
The soybean harvest in Ontario was well under way before the bill was even introduced on October 3. The com harvest was well under way and the prices dropped because the bill was not there to even out the flow of grain to market. Soybean producers had to sell their crop in order to get cash in hand. Will the minister consider compensating those farmers for the loss they took when they had to harvest the beans at that low price? I think the price has recovered by about 40 cents a bushel since October 3.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the hon. member because he has had a lot of experience in this House. I would not want him to leave the impression that there has not been a willingness to negotiate and facilitate the passage of this bill. He will know and his Whip will know that we have made several attempts.
The reason there were delays is because there were some improvements made to the bill. There were several attempts made, all of which were aborted because the members opposite wanted to have a little fun with this thing. This bill could have been passed a month ago. It is not a complex bill, it is fairly straightforward. It was introduced on September 27,1 am told. Had there been a willingness and a desire to assist the producers about whom he is now so concerned, I am sure his generosity would have prevailed and we would have been able to do something.
Unfortunately, we are at the stage now where it is too late to consider that. I hope that we can get this bill passed as quickly as possible. I hope that he will have some influence on his friends in the other place and that they will not foot drag so we can get this legislation in place. It is my sense that while a lot of producers would rather have interest free cash advances, they are now interested in getting this legislation in place so that they can use it to full advantage and it will be used to fuller advantage because of the flexibility and improvements that we have put in it.
Government Orders


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, during his earlier comments the Minister of Agriculture made an excellent case for his use of this particular legislation as a means to keep farm prices down so that processing plants could remain open. He quoted a couple of processing operators who he indicated were in favour of the removal of the interest-free cash advances prior to it being done, which was proposed in the budget of last April.
Could he tell us, in the spirit of consultation which is supposed to be the spirit in which this government entered office, whether in fact he had any meetings in this regard with the farm organizations? Could he report what they told him? In the letters that we have received during the course of this legislation being before committee, we have not found any farm organization that has approved of doing away with the interest-free cash advance. We were only able to call three before us because of the time constraints imposed on us by the Conservative majority in the committee, but we did not hear from any groups that were in favour of the proposal.
Who did he consult with prior to the budget proposition and what farm groups, if any, were behind it? We know that the processors appear to like it because they are hoping it will keep farm prices down to the point where they can have a margin to stay in business and show a good profit processing. What farmers liked it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member attempts to mislead again. He said that the only people whom I quoted or referred to were a couple of processors. I referred to one processor; it was United Oilseeds in Lloydminster, and that happens to be owned by the United Grain Growers which is a co-operative, I think. The other one was from the Manitoba Pool. That is a co-operative too, is it not?


Mr. Gustafson:: As far as I know.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Where does he get off with this nonsense of me listening only to the processors. I thought that the Manitoba Wheat Pool was a co-operative organization composed of farmers and I thought the United Grain Growers was a farmer co-operative organization. I am not sure how the hon. member gets off trying to suggest that all I am listening to are processors.

November 27, 1989
Government Orders


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You're making processor arguments, not farmer arguments.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Oh, now, Mr. Speaker, they are making processor arguments, not farmer arguments.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The processing arm was the people you were listening to, right?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Oh, I see.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Well, read the letter again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I guess he is now suggesting that farmers, because they do not haul to canola crushers, are not interested in processors. Is that right? Is that what the hon. member is saying? Is that the new NDP farm policy?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The question was: "What farmers?" It's lowering farm prices. You have admitted it's lowering farm prices.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Okay, now we are getting into the second part of the question. I will respond to that.
The hon. member asked what farmers we consulted with before we brought this budgetary proposal down. When you bring down a budgetary proposal, you do not consult. I think that has been a tradition and part and parcel of our parliamentary democracy.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That was not what you said when you came into power.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The budget was presented; the budget has been ratified. This is legislation that is flowing from the budget.
The hon. member said there are no farmers who want to pay interest. I agree, that is probably correct. But I will tell you what farmers want. They want to see interest rates come down, they want to see the deficit come down and they want to see us tackle the national debt.
The hon. member opposite has been around here a long time but, boy, when it comes to exercising responsibility, they are here hollering in the House every day: "spend, spend, spend". Today we are at the stage where we cannot spend, spend, spend any more and even farmers are now being asked to bear a portion of the burden. That is what we are doing in a very modest way here. In addition, we hope that through this we may remove some of the distortions and dislocations that take place in the market-place.
What farmers are wanting and expecting of a government is sound and proper fiscal management to get the Canadian books of account into shape. That is what we are trying to do and we are asking everyone to co-operate and to assist in this process by sharing that burden. I am sure the hon. member would agree with that.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the Minister of Agriculture. There is one concern which he can perhaps clear up just by being Deputy Prime Minister.
A lot of farm groups suggest, as did the letter I read this afternoon from the Manitoba Canola Producers and the letter which we received from the Ontario Com Producers, that the interest rates well may be 2 per cent above prime. The minister has talked about them being 1 or 2 per cent below prime. I wonder if he could give the House a guarantee that the Department of Finance and the Department of Agriculture will ensure that the resulting loan guarantee will result in rates below prime by 1 or 2 per cent.
That clearly would be a significant step because it would provide to farmers using the program some significant advantage, using the power and the financial resources of the Government of Canada, whereas if it is 2 per cent above prime, if the person is in a reasonably good financial position he can probably borrow at the bank at that rate. He is certainly not going to have to put up $2 in security by way of crop in the bin in order to get $1 loan through a producer organization. If the minister could clarify that it would be very helpful.
He talked about the canola plant, I believe it was owned by the United Grain Growers in Saskatchewan, that was supporting the bill. In fact, the United Grain Growers were one of the organizations which wrote the Prime Minister an urgent letter in early October demanding that the government abandon the bill and let the funds which had already been approved by Parliament go forward. I would be very surprised if that canola plant was really that concerned.
I note as well that the minister's colleague and counterpart in the province of Manitoba, Mr. Findlay, wrote the minister a letter dated September 19 urging that the advance payment be provided to farmers, and
November 27, 1989

stating that the cash flow problems currently felt by Manitoba producers could be alleviated by this bill.
The last point I want to put to the minister is the one made by Cliff Leach, the president of the Ontario Com Producers, in a letter to the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds just after he spoke in the House on October 4 in which, besides refuting most of the points that the minister had made in the House when he intervened in the debate, he puts the question about which I think all members are concerned.
He said:
Finally we must repeat our underlying criticism that Bill C-36 represents a reduction in federal support for Canadian farmers when no commitment has been made to reduce comparable assistance elsewhere-and specifically in U.S. Farm Bill loan provisions available to American farmers.
I think that is the concern of a lot of producers, not just the advance payments bill, Bill C-36, but the whole list of items-I believe there were six-that were in the budget on which action has been taken by the government that were listed as subsidies in the FTA.
The Americans have not made any reduction in their agricultural support programs whereas on the Canadian side we have about six, everything from reduction in crop insurance to doing away with the two-price wheat system, a significant number of which we have moved on. This one is quite important because the Americans have a loan program whereby they provide interest for farm stored wheat and major crops. We seem to be doing away with these unilaterally rather than negotiating them bilaterally under the subsidy code provisions of the FTA. Since this question was put by the president of the Ontario Com Producers, I wonder if the Minister might respond to that question put in the letter to the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the hon. member because it does provide me with an opportunity to correct an impression that I left with my friend in the NDP when I may have said 1 to 3 per cent below prime. That is not correct. It is probably 3 per cent below the current going rates.
For example, the Canadian Wheat Board does borrow at a rate below prime. We think that we will be able to get an almost similar rate although there may be some small charge for administration handling. I apologize and
Government Orders
regret that very much. We are basically looking at 2 to 3 percentage points below the going rate of interest which would be roughly in the area of prime or slightly above.
The hon. member raises a point about what support programs from the agriculture industry are the best. It is obvious that our grain stabilization program and our crop insurance program and some of our agricultural stabilization programs have been insufficient to meet the tumultuous period of time we have just gone through. That is precisely why we are looking at a new crop insurance program. That is why we are looking at the issue of safety nets to see whether we can design safety nets that will be more permanent, more reliable and more predictable and that will be in place on a permanent basis rather than on the basis of having to design them on an ad hoc basis.
I think the fanners want to make their plans with some degree of confidence. They want to plant their crops knowing that they can make the decisions reading market signals, weather patterns and trends. At the same time they want to make sure there is some kind of safety net, some kind of shield that will be there so that they can make those kinds of decisions.
That is our ultimate goal and objective. That work is proceeding and we hope very much that during the course of the comprehensive agriculture review that we are currently undertaking we will be able to come up with some programs that will be more appropriately and more fittingly designed to meet the 1990s and the 21st century based upon some of the experiences that we have encountered over the last four or five years.
I do not think there is any secret in the fact that the last four or five years, in terms of drought conditions for example, were probably equal to or worse than the 1930s. I think it really speaks very well of the producers of this country who have been able to survive. I think it demonstrates a tremendous degree of resilience that they have been able to survive this very difficult period with, of course, the aid of governments.
Ad hoc programs are very difficult to design and very difficult to administer. Usually you end up not pleasing everybody. You end up with inequities from one region to the other, from one township to the other, from one county to the other. We are trying to overcome that if we possibly can. .

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
We hope that in the course of the review we will be able to deal with this issue with everybody around the table trying to sort this out in order that we can come up with programs that will be properly cost-shared and will be fiscally sound but permanent, reliable and effective.
The hon. member says that this is part of the free trade agreement. I am not sure how long we are going to have to be around here to get off that kick. There is nothing in this that is being directed by the free trade agreement whatsoever. We are our own sovereign country. We do what we have to do to meet the challenges and the conditions of the agricultural community.
One would ask whether the $20.7 billion or $20.8 billion that we have poured into agriculture as a federal government over the last four or five years was dictated to by the free trade agreement or not.
I suppose the hon. member is now trying to say that if we reduce that by $100 he is going to blame it on the free trade agreement. We did it because we had to respond to a need. Fanners know that we have responded to the need. Farmers also know, if you really sit down and talk about it, that this government has been pretty generous to them.
The hon. member reads figures just as well as I do, so he will know that in 1988, in terms of realized net income, it was the best year that farmers ever had. I know that there are difficulties and there are areas that are hurting. I know that.
I serve a rural constituency just like the hon. members opposite, but figures do not lie. The fact of the matter is that there are pockets where the hurt is substantive, while there are other areas in which things are going a little better. That is not to say that everything is well.
I am not trying to paint a rosy picture for agriculture. What I am saying is that we are trying to deal with this with the limited resources we have available. We are trying to respond effectively and we are trying to respond with some degree of sincerity. The last thing that farmers want is a return to the 22 per cent, 23 per cent and 24 per cent interest rates that were the hallmark of the party and the government that member was a part of.


Mr. Milliken:: You are not serious.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am serious. I will tell you-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And they are serious.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to difficulties on the farm 97 per cent of all the farmers who are in difficulty today are in difficulty because of the 23 per cent and 24 per cent interest rates which that government brought about and inflation that heads up to 15 per cent. The inflationary psychology was on a treadmill.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Absolute nonsense.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: These guys say it is absolute nonsense. That goes to show you how much they know about farming. We are trying to avoid a repetition of the disasters inflicted upon the farm community by the Liberal government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the Minister of Agriculture and the Deputy Prime Minister are attempting to head off a disaster with high interest rates as we saw in the early 1980s. I note that we are now a full four percentage points above United States interest rates, something that even in those terrible days we did not achieve for very long.
Consistent with his arguments about attempting to keep down inflation, would he advise the House what his government's intention is with regard to the amendment for each of the two acts that are being dealt with and put forward by myself to limit the amount of loans to just $50,000 from the current $30,000?
That way they would go up from $30,000 to $50,000, as a means of combating this inflationary psychology. It would also be a means of limiting the amount of liability the Government of Canada will have basically to the banks in this country. Given the opportunity of turning a quarter of a million dollars of their own liability on to the Government of Canada, lending institutions will encourage some of their customers whose accounts are getting a bit shaky to go and take out the maximum cash advance for grain. That way, if they should happen to fall into bankruptcy or receivership, the government will be held responsible and not the bank.
Can the minister tell us whether members on the government side will be supporting a more modest kind
November 27, 1989

of approach to move from maximum loans of $30,000 up to only $50,000 instead of the $250,000 million that was originally in the bill?
In keeping with his espoused attempts at abating the inflation psychology, certainly it seems to me that one of the more inflationary things a government could do would be to move this ceiling on loans from $30,000 up to $250,000 all in one step.
We do not know from the witnesses we were able to call just how many loans hit the ceiling, but from the witnesses that we were able to hear it appeared that very few people actually applied for the maximum loan.
We were unable to get the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee to come because government members refused to allow us to hear from those witnesses. Therefore we do not know what proportion of the population using cash advances went to the maximum. We were told by the witnesses we heard that a very small percentage indeed took the maximum of $30,000.
I repeat my question to the minister: If he is so interested in abating the inflationary psychology, why is the government proposing to move from a maximum of $30,000 to a maximum of $250,000 for these loans?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member's whole purpose of engaging in this debate was to point out the fact that farmers needed money to pay off their bills and to smooth out the markets of their commodities when prices were low. In that way they could take an advance based upon the market signals and on basic sound business principles.
Now I hear him saying that they do not need too much money; they just need about as much as he would prescribe. I do not share that same philosophical view.
I do not believe that farmers are irresponsible. I believe that farmers are good business managers. I think that they can best make the decision whether they should borrow $30,000, $60,000 or $100,000. I would leave it in the hands of the producer.
I have watched in my lifetime a dramatic change occur in the agricultural industry. As one bom and raised on a farm, I have witnessed the transition from horsepower to mechanical power. If there is one thing that stands out in
Government Orders
my mind about the agricultural industry in Canada it is its ability to adapt to change.
The reason we are successful in agriculture today and have been able to survive as one of the leading agricultural countries in the world is that our farmers have been able to adapt to change. When farmers adapt to change it means, at least to me, that they are sound business managers.
They are good business managers and they can make the best decisions. I would rather leave it in their hands so that they can diversify and use this for a multiple series of crops. They will make the decisions. We will provide the tools with which they can make those decisions, and I will rely upon their good sense and sound judgment.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the need for money by farmers right now.
The minister makes the point that the decision was passed in the budget, but that does not etch it in stone. It is not necessary for the government to take that position, continue with it, and run with it.
The government has changed its mind before on issues that have been in the budget and passed in the budget. I point to one particular example, that is, the deindexing of the seniors' pensions which was brought forward in The Budget Papers and was changed when the government shifted its position. This was not too long ago.
Why not pass this bill on to the Senate but use the old bill to get the money out to farmers now? Let it go to the Senate, and you will have your bill for next year which is a logical time to get it. I ask the minister: Why not use this approach, get the money out to farmers now on the old bill, and use the new bill next year?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have been through that argument before. I have tried to lay out the reasons for the need to pass this bill at this particular time. It is a budgetary provision.
The member says that governments have changed their minds before. I am sure that opposition parties would have wished they had changed their minds.
I remember in the budget of 1979 when we were in government that we proposed a modest 18-cent a gallon increase in the price of gasoline. The NDP and the

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
Liberals voted together to defeat that particular measure and the price of gasoline went up.


An Hon. Member:: You raised it $1.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Gasoline went up over $1 a gallon and we accumulated an additional burden of debt to the tune of about $100 billion plus during that period of time. The only reason we are accumulating it now is that we are paying the interest on your debt, which we cannot afford. That is what is wrong. We are still paying for the litany of mismanagement caused by that government and supported by that gang over there.


An Hon. Member:: From $68 million to $200 billion.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I know the hon. member for Prince Albert is genuine and sincere when he makes his plea. I am sorry to disappoint him. We have to move with this legislation at this particular time. I will go to the extent of telling his constituency that he fought a good and lofty fight in the process.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the genial Minister of Agriculture. It occurred to me that he is having great pressure from groups in Saskatchewan and across the prairies. Groups like the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee have been pointing out that a lot of crop this year is of low quality due to wet periods during harvesting. A lot of it cannot be delivered because of the demand for the lower quality wheats, barley and so on. That is a very important argument.
The other group in Saskatchewan is the Saskatchewan Municipal Association that has been doing studies which show a very deteriorating situation with regard to loss of farms, farm foreclosures, and debts that cannot be serviced. This was pointed out dramatically in the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan Pool in which it said that at least $500 million will be required before spring planting next year. That has been reinforced by a letter from the premier of the province saying that additional funds would be required.
It seems to me the advance payment money would be one way to put funds into the hands of producers on an interim basis. I do understand that there has be some kind of emergency funding arrangement for this purpose.
Assuming that no permanent arrangement with regard to additional funding is made, I am wondering if the minister has considered responding to those requests from Garf Stevenson, President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool or Premier Grant Devine as these advance payments would provide several hundred millions of dollars of cash flow at harvest time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I hope I understand the purport of the hon. member's question correctly. Is he saying that if we were to bring forth interest-free farm cash advances that that would satisfy the premier of the province of Saskatchewan and Mr. Stevenson, the president of the Wheat Pool? I sort of gathered that that is what he was trying to say. He may want to clarify that a little later.
He also said that farmers have grain of poor quality, and there is not much market demand for it at this particular time. That is all the more reason why this legislation should be moved forward quickly, because they will have the opportunity to take advantage of this instrument to take out advances and in the process improve their cash flow.
He also left the impression that this instrument was a tool to finance long-term debt. It was never intended to be that. It is intended to be a marketing tool, to use the facility of a cash advance, to improve your cash flow, and to arrange your marketing so that you can maximize your returns. That is what this issue is for.
It is not to finance long-term debt or intermediate term debt. It is a marketing tool. It is there to facilitate orderly marketing and to ensure that the producer gets the best market return possible. I regret the hon. member is leaving the impression that if this particular piece of legislation were to be withdrawn all would be well.
We know that there are still problems in western Canada and in other parts of Canada in the agricultural community. The premier of the province of Saskatchewan represents his farmers very well and makes representations to us on a regular basis when he considers there is a need. Of course, we will be responding to his request. We will be analysing and assessing the magnitude of the difficulties, whether they be drought or other conditions, as we have in the past.
November 27, 1989

I want to assure my hon. friend that our record speaks louder than words. In the process we will examine the extent. I know that last year about this time everyone was screaming and hollering about the need for drought payments.
We will not get statistics in from the crop insurance people until the end of January, February or March. It is very difficult to try to make guestimates of the extent of any losses because when you do you sometimes miss the mark.
Obviously, we will be monitoring the situation very closely and responding to the premier in some detail indicating how we intend to monitor the situation. We will seek his co-operation as he will ours. Once again, no one in the province of Saskatchewan speaks louder and clearer and with a more articulate voice than the premier of the province of Saskatchewan.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in the House is aware that this is not long-term financing of farm debt. It only exacerbates the situation if the government responds in a positive way to the Sask Pool and to the premier in providing assistance later this winter or early next spring.
This $400 million or $500 million worth of interest-free loans is not available, and that is why the whole situation is being exacerbated this fall. Clearly, we have heard the cries from the Canadian Wheat Board, from the municipal leaders, and from the pools. I suppose that if the minister continues to press this legislation through it only puts that much more pressure on him from the premier of Saskatchewan. He has already outlined that and of course we are very familiar with it from the 1986 provincial election when the demand came in at 6 a.m.
I just think that it does worsen the situation for these producers, especially at harvest time when we have not, apparently from what the Prime Minister said today, been able to conclude new shipments and agreements for the sale of wheat to Russia. The situation is aggravated by the loss of this provision.
The minister would agree that in the negotiations over the subsidy code there was a list of subsidies which was not subject to the countervail. Most producers, including farm producers, soybean producers and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, only three groups allowed to
Government Orders
speak before the committee, could not understand why we were destroying this unilaterally when it would lend itself in the negotiation of a subsidy code with the United States to giving away certain support programs through agriculture well before negotiations had started to take place.
It is my understanding that they are not going to take place until 1991. I would say to the minister that removing this is a very unfortunate thing at this time. It is his decision and his difficulty, perhaps with his good friend the premier of Saskatchewan, because it will only exacerbate pressure for special interim payments at a much earlier time than might have been necessary because of the level and quality of crops in the prairies this summer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. Minister of Agriculture have a reply?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will reply because the hon. member made reference to the first special Canadian Grains Program and to a telephone call that occurred in the middle of the night. I want to say this to you and to other members of the House who may not have been here at that time: there was no one who was more disappointed about the federal government coming up with a special Canadian Grains Program than members of the Liberal party. It pulled the rug right from under them. They tried to distort the program by suggesting it was a loan. They wanted to know whether it was new money or old money or whether it was phoney money. It was hilarious to watch them.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Their old leader told them to sell their own grain. They were used to that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That's right. They were used to that because they did have a leader who told farmers what to do with their wheat.
This has nothing to do with the subsidy code. The hon. member keeps insisting that he has to drag the trade agreement into this issue. He has absolutely no basis upon which to make that statement at all. This has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever.
We have a gentleman across here who purports to speak for agriculture. He fails to realize that the agricultural community is very heavily reliant upon the export industry. Some 50 per cent of our agricultural market receipts are achieved through the export market. We are a world player in the export market. We have been

Government Orders
caught in the crossfire of a price war between the European Community and the United States.
It was the Prime Minister of this country who brought the issue of agriculture to the top of the agenda in the GATT proceedings to deal with this debilitating situation that was destroying the export oriented industry of agriculture in Canada. What we see now is the attention of all agriculture producing nations directed toward dealing with the gradual reduction of trade distorting subsidies, which incidentally in world terms total somewhere between $250 billion and $275 billion.
Quite frankly, if we are going to be asked as a trading nation to pay our share of those dues, we cannot stay in that business. It is incumbent upon us to work together with other agriculture producing nations to bring about a gradual reduction of the trade distorting subsidies that have played havoc on a very important segment of the Canadian agricultural industry.
The hon. member speaks out of both sides of his mouth. The fact of the matter is we have to ensure that our export oriented industry and our domestic oriented industry are fairly treated. That is the kind of balance we are trying to achieve.
It is worthy to discuss this issue on an intellectually honest basis, but when he keeps throwing red herrings are being thrust across the floor, bringing the subsidy code into this particular issue, it does not speak well of the hon. member. He and I came to this House at the same time. We have enjoyed each other's company, but there are times when he lectures me and I have to lecture him. Today it is my turn to lecture him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The next motions are Motions Nos. 7 and 10.
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 33 and
34 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) not exceed the lesser of $50,000 if there is one shareholder, partner or member, as the case may be, and such amount as the Minister may determine;
(b)	not exceed the lesser of $100,000 if there are two or more shareholders, partners or members, as the case may be, and such amount as the Minister may determine;
(c)	not exceed the lesser of $150,000 if there are three shareholders, partners or members, as the case may be, and such amount as the Minister may determine."
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-36 be amended in Clause 16 by striking out line 30 at
page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall not exceed
(a)	$50,000 if there is one shareholder, partner or member, as the case may be;
(b)	$100,000 if there are two or more shareholders, partners or members, as the case may be;
(c)	$150,000 if there are three shareholders, partners or members, as the case may be."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have proposed these amendments. They occur in two places, but I think it is suitable that we debate them both at the same time since we are amending two separate bills and the two different motions in effect put the same amendment to each part of the acts that we are amending.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motions Nos. 7 and 10 are in order and will be debated together, with a vote on Motion No. 7 applying to Motion No. 10.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my reason for putting this motion forward stems in part from what we heard in committee. We were only able to hear from three farm witnesses, but we found that from the experiences of those witnesses very few users of the cash advance system when it was interest-free ever took the maximum loan which under the old act was $30,000 in each case.
My colleagues and I in this party believe there is no need to send out signals that induce inflationary psychology. We think that the $30,000 has been in place for a number of years and, if there is to be an increase, we think $50,000 will be adequate for almost every user of the program at this date.
I submit that if $30,000 was adequate for virtually all of the users when $30,000 was available interest-free, surely virtually no one will ever ask for a loan above the $50,000 that we propose here. We think this is a consistent and responsible kind of motion to put. If the
November 27, 1989

government were serious about its fight against inflationary psychology which it cites over and over again, it will be supportive of this motion. I heartily accept their approval and await their "yeas" when the vote is called.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I think our main concern with this bill is the removal of the interest support provided with it. We have outlined to the government the tremendous losses that will occur to the industry, not only in cash flow for producers but in income to farmers. If the experience of the com producers is indicative of the entire industry, in many cases you get as high as 15 times effective cash cost benefit from the money invested. There is a big mistake being made there.
I do not know how the Minister of Agriculture can do anything but look at the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, see advance payments in that and similar advance payments interest-support programs in the U.S., and say it has nothing to do with the free trade deal. It will have nothing to do with the negotiations for the removal of subsidies because we will have removed our subsidy. We will have removed the cash advance program. So, if we are trying to negotiate a subsidy code with the Americans, and we have already removed it back in 1989 and the negotiation will probably take place in 1991, then they will say, "We are not interested in negotiating that because you have already taken it away from your farmers".
The two-price wheat, the support for the At and East rate, and at least a half dozen other things, were either removed in the removed by unilateral action of the government, such as the two-price wheat system was back in August, 1988. The farm groups are concerned about the loss of the support programs, such as advance payments, crop insurance, and At and East support program, but they cannot imagine that any government would be so naive as to give these things away except in the course of a negotiation. If support programs are going to be cut, there must be some way to do it without giving it away unilaterally before the negotiations even begin.
The NDP member has outlined a division of the support that the government has set down increasing the amount. We have no complaint about support. We think we should have larger support. The $250,000 is a veiy
Government Orders
high limit. On the other hand, it is hard to know because legislation tends not to get amended and $50,000 might seem to be adequate at this time but may not be adequate in future years if higher prices prevail for crops such as com and soybeans. We think the amendment proposed will cause a certain amount of restriction, perhaps not very great at this stage but it might at some time in the future. We do not like to see government programs limited but our main objection to the bill is the removal of the interest-free portion of the advance payments as is proposed by the government.
My colleague from Lambton-Middlesex has looked at the whole question of why the bill is not passed or why the bill has taken so long. I would like before we arrive at the time allocated by the House for the vote, to allow him to outline those provisions that seem to have taken place and why this bill has taken so long to get before the House.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps referring to the Canada-U.S Free Trade Agreement and we are talking about a program that was an advance of $27 million to a very small number of producers. Not that many producers used the program. It is a budget cutting measure, as the minister pointed out earlier. I think everyone in this House agreement between Canada and the United States.
He also refers to At and East. This is an old program that needs to be looked at. If the hon. member has read it, he will realize that transportation issues are being addressed. It is time that they were addressed. There again, tying all this to the free trade agreement is not the case at all and not fair.
As far as the motion goes in respect to the limit, we have given a lot of thought and researched this area. We feel $250,000 is fair. We know it is difficult after a figure has been set to change it. Under the previous legislation the $30,000 limit did not allow many producers to access the program because of the multiple number of crops they grew. With this new limit it will allow the producers to put all of the crops they grow together and access the program to a greater extent.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, could the parliamentary secretary, who has just told us that not too many people were able to access the program when $30,000 was the limit, inform the House what proportion of the loans were at the $30,000 limit last year or the year before, or

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
the year before that. Could he give us the data because we have not been able to get it to this point?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to provide that information but I know that some commodities access the total value of the product. I believe tobacco was one of the commodities in this country that used the advance to the full amount. We will see if we can provide that information for the hon. member but I do not have those figures today. We know there was a very small number of producers who did use the program. I do not have the figures with me as to the amount of utilization.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, it only stands to reason that if producers were not utilizing the program to the extent they normally would do so in the crop years 1987 and 1988, it is primarily because we had a veiy serious drought in both of those years, not only across the prairies, but also across Ontario where both the soybean and com producers were hit extremely hard.
I just want to emphasize again the point I was speaking to a little earlier, when the government suggested that the opposition parties were holding up this bill. The bill received second reading, as I indicated earlier, on October 26. It was passed clause by clause in committee on November 8. Now, almost three weeks later, it is brought into the House where it will pass third reading this afternoon.
Clearly, after the government has delayed for five months after the budget was passed before bringing this legislation into the House, the government itself has to accept the responsibility for that five-month delay and then the three-week delay between the time it was passed and today when we have it in the House.
I think the point that has been missed today is the fact that this is just another step in dismantling the farm programs in Canada by this government that claims it is responding to market pressures. This afternoon, we heard quite a bit about those market pressures, "We are responding to market pressures". These are the same market pressures it said led to the demise of the two-price wheat system which served the producers of this country very well. I am sure the parliamentary
secretary will realize it will cost him about $1 bushel in his next year's crop when that crop is harvested.
The same market pressures relate to the removal of oats from Canadian Wheat Board. Of course, we know that the producers in western Canada, the prairie pools and the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board are very upset about this move. We know they were not producer moves but moves and pressures brought about by some of the marketing institutions.
Harmonization of regulations was again because of market pressures. Now these same market pressures have led to the United States appealing to GATT on our ice cream and yogurt even though the United States does not allow ice cream into their country.
The market pressures are a result of the United States countervail against our pork. These have forced several small packing plants in Ontario to close this last summer. More recently, those same market pressures were the ones that caused the closing of the St. Lawrence Starch Company at Mississauga. The removal of the At and East again is due to market pressures.
I just want to ask this government when is it going to apply some market pressures and bring these pressures to bear that will support our programs and support our plants which are being forced into extinction? The government responds obviously to pressures, but only pressures of big business and United States interests.
I ask the government again today, as this debate on the crop cash advances winds down, to consider what it is doing as it dismantles these programs piece by piece, the very infrastructure that has served the producers of this nation so well for so many years.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises quite a number of issues. He stated that we are dismantling the market programs. I do not believe we are dismantling market programs at all. We have always been very forceful in indicating our support for the supply managed sector in this country. If there is any group of producers that wishes to collectively market its produce we will provide the enabling legislation. That has been very clear.

We have also said, and this is well known at GATT, that Article 11 of GATT has to be clarified and strengthened. That should be sending a strong signal. I believe we have the support of the Canadian Dairy Commission and the dairy fanners of Canada in the strengthening and clarifying of Article 11 of GATT. They know that that has to happen. But we are working together with the producers to do these things. That is where the success is going to come from, by working with the producers of these various crops.
The hon. member talked about oats being removed from the Canadian Wheat Board. It is my understanding that the Canadian Wheat Board did not market an awful lot of those oats.
He talked about the two-price wheat. Many of us in this country have forgotten why the two-price wheat system was brought in in the first place. It is my understanding that it was brought in for the protection of Canadian consumers because the price of wheat was much higher on the domestic market.
The hon. member mentioned St. Lawrence Starch. From newspaper articles, the company claims that the com countervail was the reason that they were taking a look at their operation and the decisions they had made. None of us probably know the real reasons why St. Lawrence Starch is moving, but we could all speculate and this is not the place to speculate. We would certainly not want to do that.
We also, as a government, are supporting the pork and the red meat industries with assistance in countervail actions that have been brought forward by the United States. We will continue to stand behind the producers of our various commodities in any action that is taken. We are not going to stand back idly and see our producers hindered or tramped on by actions taken by the U.S.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine on a very short question.


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I will address my questions to the parliamentary secretary. We sometimes have problems across Canada with people understanding what happens with the west, central Canada and the maritimes.
Government Orders
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary for figures in terms of farmers per capita on the amount of federal government subsidies that go to the west, to Ontario, to Quebec, and to the maritimes. If he could perhaps address that, it would clarify a lot of things for Canadians across this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The parliamentary secretary on a very short answer.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I realize that we are basically out of time. I do not have it broken down as to regions across Canada, but we could certainly provide that to the hon. member.
The minister earlier today, while we were discussing this bill, indicated the total payments that have gone out to all agriculture right across Canada. I am sure the hon. member will find it extremely interesting. A look at Hansard tomorrow would provide us with much of that information but we will get the hon. member a breakdown on those figures.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to Order made Thursday, November 23, 1989, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of all the stages of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motions Nos. 7 and 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motions Nos. 7 and 10 negatived.


Hon. Mary Collins (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grains Advance Payments Act, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee be concurred in.

Government Orders


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to order made Thursday, November 23, 1989, now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
November 27, 1989

Government Orders


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, just before you utter the words "Call in the members", I think you would find a unanimous disposition in the House to apply the vote taken on report stage of the bill to the third reading stage of the bill.
Hughes
James
Johnson
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Koury
Langlois
Layton
Lewis
Lopez
Malone
Martin (Lincoln)
McDermid
McLean
Mitges
Moore
Oberle
Porter
Reimer
Robitaille
St-Julien
Siddon
Sparrow
Tardif
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tbrner (Halton-Peel)
Vien
White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Winegard
Jacques
Jelinek
Kempling
Kindy
Landry
Larrivee
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Littlechild
MacKay
Marin
Mazankowski
McKnight
Merrithew
Monteith
Nowlan
O'Kurley
Redway
Ricard
Roy-Arcelin
Schneider
Sobeski
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont) Van de Walle Vincent Wilbee Assiniboia)
Worthy-121
++NAYS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?
Members


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.

November 27, 1989
Private Members' Business
It being 5.17 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, November 23, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   ABORIGINAL PEOPLES NEEDS OF YOUTH
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider developing special initiatives, in consultation with Aboriginal peoples, to response to the serious employment, education and health needs of aboriginal youth.
He said: I think there is an interpreter when I start speaking Inuktitut, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation from Inuktitut]
I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak to the concerns of aboriginal youth. I submitted this motion as a subject for debate out of a deep concern for both the present circumstances and future prospects of the young Inuit, Indian and Metis men and women in this country. I hope my remarks today will do justice to their concerns, their hopes and their dreams.
To the members of the Private Members' Business committee I would like to express my appreciation for having designated this motion a votable one. I am pleased that they view this issue as seriously as I do.
What does it mean to be young and aboriginal and living in Canada today? Last year, the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission made newspaper headlines with this grim statement: "An Indian youngster in Canada has a better chance of being sent to prison than of completing university."
Many parliamentarians and Canadians were shocked at the time, and rightly so. But the alarming headlines disappeared after a day or so. How many of us bothered
to wonder why the situation exists, or asked what could be done to help change the situation? Headlines come and go, but the problems faced by aboriginal youths remain.
[Translation from Inuktitut\
I would like to quote from a letter I received from Mikkel Panaktalok, the secretaiy of the Tuktoyaktuk Youth Committee on the issue of law and prison.
If we knew what the law meant, we would not break it because our community and families are much too important to us, to hurt them in any way. We also don't want to go to jail because we don't want to get sent away from our parents. Sometimes though we feel that the only way we can get help and counselling is to be sent away, because we don't know how to get this help in our community, because of the lack of education programs. We cannot make choices unless we have the information we need.
In order to bring out a problem to get help, we get into trouble. Youth do not want to do this anymore. We never did want to do it intentionally.
We think that the RCMP, health services and social services are only there only when you are in trouble. No one tells us about prevention programs. We need help in using these agencies. We want to work together, but these agencies isolate us. All they do is react instead of prevent.

What are some of the stark realities of being young, aboriginal and living in Canada today? Statistics tell us that a young aboriginal person has fewer economic and employment prospects than a non-aboriginal person. They tell us that the young aboriginal person will not achieve as high an education and will earn less income than a non-aboriginal youth.
The health of the young aboriginal person is poorer than the non-aboriginal youth. The aboriginal youth will live about 10 years less than his or her non-aboriginal counterpart and is more likely to die a violent death.
Study after study has documented the continuing social and economic discrepancies between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples in this country. Although there have been improvements over the past few years in life expectancy, housing, sanitation and post-secondary education the disparities remain unacceptable.
An article which appeared in the The Canadian Family Physician in July of 1988 assessed the health of the Indian and Inuit in Canada in the 1980s and the 1990s. It revealed that Indian infant morality rates are more than
November 27, 1989

twice the Canadian rate. Inuit infant mortality rates are more than three times the Canadian rate.
There remains a 10-year discrepancy in the life expectancy between aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people in Canada.
[ Translation from Inuktitut]
The rate of tuberculosis among aboriginal people is still 7 to 10 times higher than the national average. In some communities in the Northwest Territories, where epidemics have broken out in the past couple of years, the rates are over 100 per cent higher than the national rate.
Violent deaths are still a significant cause of mortality among aboriginal people. In 1933, 31 per cent of all Indian deaths and 34 per cent of all Inuit deaths were violent deaths. Of these violent deaths, suicide is the most important cause of death in young adults.
The aboriginal youth of Canada are killing themselves at a shocking rate. The statistics are horrifying and demand the attention of all of us.
The Inuit of the Northwest Territories are committing suicide at a rate four times the national average. More than half of the 172 suicide victims in the Northwest Territories since 1978 have been in the 15 to 24 age group, and the vast majority are males.

Between 1978 and 1988 the rate of suicide amongst Inuit in the Northwest Territories averaged 53.4 per 100,000. The suicide rate was 22.3 per 100,000 for Indians, and 20 per 100,000 for others.
The average Canadian suicide rate over the decade was about 14 per 100,000.
Factors contributing to the high rate of suicide among aboriginal youth include poverty, alcohol and drug abuse, erosion of traditional values and stress associated with cultural transition. The cultural turmoil in many aboriginal communities especially affects the young people and many feel they have no hope for the future.
Aboriginal youth must be able to see for themselves a positive future within their communities. They must be part of the decision-making in the development of solutions.
Private Members' Business
I would like to return again to the letter I received from the Tbktoyaktuk Youth Committee and what they would like to see happen in their community:
We want to get something done for the youth in the community of lUktoyaktuk. We need national, regional, and local youth programs. We need funding- If we had other communities to work with, we could see what they are doing, and have different exchange programs with other communities. We could break down trouble between different places and get new ideas. Sometimes other youth might be doing things that we would like to do.
There is no place for the youth to go to. No drop-in centre, no place to hang out, nothing happening in the evenings for the youth in our community. There isn't enough recreational programs. Right now, the youth are getting into trouble because of not enough things to do. A drop-in centre would really benefit our community.
We need to be given responsibility and be taught how to use this responsibility, and given the power to make decisions.
There is not enough, if any, substance abuse or alcohol programs that are for youth in the community. We do not have anyone our age who is trained in this area. Unless we do, the message does not get through. We need our peers to teach us what happens. We need someone our own age that we can look up to. They are trying to use programs for adults, and these programs do not work for the youth.
Improving educational attainment levels is essential. Educational attainment levels among aboriginal people are still significantly lower than among non-aboriginal people. Grade 9 attainment for the general population is 80 per cent. For Indians living on urban reserves it is 66 per cent. For Indians living on rural reserves it is 51 per cent.
[Translation from Inuktitut]
In the Northwest Territories, 63 per cent of aboriginal people have less than a grade 9 education. Only 2 per cent of aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories have attended university. School dropout and failure rates are still high. Less than half of the students enrolled in grate 10 in the Northwest Territories graduate. It is at this stage that most young people quit school because most of them are reluctant to leave their home communities to attend high school in one of the major centres.
While it is true that attainment levels have been increasing over recent years, there is still much more to be done. And what are the employment prospects of these young aboriginal students once they graduate? Not good.

November 27, 1989
Private Members' Business
I am concerned we may have an aboriginal youth employment crisis of major proportions very soon unless some priority attention is given to this issue.

The aboriginal population of the country is growing at a much faster rate than the non-aboriginal population. The 1989-1990 estimates of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs indicate that the Indian population has been growing at a rate three times as fast as the Canadian population as a whole. This rate does not even include the increase in the Indian population due to Bill C-31, passed a few years ago by Parliament, which has restored Indian status to thousands of Indian people who had lost this status under various discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act.
This growth rate has resulted in a population which is very young. Almost two thirds of the Indian population is under the age of 25, compared to less than one quarter of the Canadian population as a whole.
Internal documents of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs point out the serious employment consequences of this young and growing population. Between 1987 and 1997, 140,000 young aboriginal people will become eligible to join the labour force. According to the department, the problems this will create cannot be understated. Just to maintain employment rates at present low levels will require 8,000 plus new jobs annually. Most of the new jobs will be required in rural areas where opportunities to date have been very limited.
In the Northwest Territories, where I am from, the picture is similar. The population growth rate of the Territories aboriginal people is 3 per cent annually. Over half of the total population of the Northwest Territories, about 53 per cent, is under the age of 25. About 43 per cent of the NWT population is under the age of 20. In the Northwest Territories, there will be 600 potential entrants to the labour force every year for the next decade.
Current unemployment rates among aboriginal people range from 35 to 50 per cent. In remote communities, the rates are higher. In the Northwest Territories, most of the almost 30,000 Inuit, Dene and Metis live in small, widely scattered villages where the prospects for growth
are limited. Unemployment rates in some of the communities reach 50 per cent and higher.
In the NWT, in the winter of 1989, the aboriginal unemployment rate was six times higher than the nonaboriginal rate. Unemployment was highest for young people aged 15 to 24.
Regionally, youth unemployment was 49 per cent in the Kitikmeot region, 34 per cent in the Baffin region, 31 per cent in the Keewatin, 28 per cent in the Inuvik region, and 20 per cent in the Fort Smith region.
The population boom in the aboriginal communities has outstripped the number of jobs being created. For example, in the Northwest Territories aboriginal communities, the working age population increased by 2,600 people between 1981 and 1986. Over the same period, employment in those communities grew by only 1,185.
The challenge of establishing conditions which will enable young people of these communities to have an economic future and lead productive lives is an enormous one.
I am encouraged, however, by the many signs that aboriginal youth are increasingly taking matters into their own hands. Last February the Aboriginal Youth of Canada held a conference here in Ottawa. The purpose of the conference was to bring together aboriginal youths from throughout Canada to provide a forum for discussions and opportunities for consensus on the course of action. The theme chosen for the conference was: "From the past, in the present, and for the future". The theme was chosen to reflect the reality that in order for aboriginal peoples to attain their goal of self-determination in the present, it is necessary to respect the traditional ways and have a clear vision of what people want to be in the future. The Aboriginal Youth Council of Canada would like to have another such conference in the new year, and I would encourage the government to support this request for funding.
In closing, I would like to express my wish that as many Members of Parliament as possible from all three parties speak to this motion. I have corresponded with many members already, inviting them to participate in this debate. The more these issues are discussed and the more people become aware of their importance, the better will be our understanding.
November 27, 1989

In conclusion, I will return to the comments of the Tuktoyaktuk youth committee which stated: "It is the hope of the youth of Tuktoyaktuk, that the concerns we have put down on paper, will be taken to heart by the politicians in Ottawa. We want to work together, to help the aboriginal youth of the north and south. The government in Ottawa has the final say that is very powerful-we hope the government in Ottawa will help us with our concerns, issues and problems." Imaginative efforts are needed to address the concerns of the aboriginal youth of Canada. I am sure that everyone will agree that it is in the national interest to ensure that the productive and creative potential of these young people is harnessed and not wasted.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq. I cannot help but commend him for his concern and his care about the well-being of aboriginal peoples in Canada. His is a concern that is shared by this government and by me personally, and it is shared by a government which is striving to accomplish real progress and bringing new hope and dignity to native Canadians.
However, I must say that while the member himself is unquestionably sincere and a man of honourable motivation, it is unfortunate that the political party he represents is astonishingly hypocritical in its dealings with this matter over the past century.
Throughout most of the past century, successive Liberal governments have demonstrated a tremendous insensitivity to the needs of the aboriginal peoples, and I bring this up because it is relevant to the policies that we have to deal with today. Liberal policies have slammed the doors on the aspirations of natives. Liberal thinking relegated the first Canadians to an existence that was separate and apart from the mainstream of modem life.
Instead of educating the young and employing the vibrant, vital, adult population of the day, these policies created what was a destructive and soul-destroying system of welfare and hopelessness where identity and self-respect were stripped away, leaving behind a very sad and weakened shadow of the proud people who once held dominion over this land.
Private Members' Business
Since 1984, this government has been working to bring some order out of this chaos. We have had to return to the very fundamentals of the relationship between Canada and its aboriginal people, and we have done so in our continuing search for answers to address these wrongs.
First, there is the issue of land claims, many of them outstanding for over a century. Since taking office five years ago, this government has settled 40 specific claims and is working on 140 more. We have also achieved agreements in principle on two comprehensive claims, and are on the brink of signing a third. As well, we are negotiating six others and the groundwork has been laid for negotiations to get under way on several more. This issue is critical to the self-esteem of the native people, who gave way to the European invasion believing, because governments told them that this was so, that there would be a place for them that they could call home. Therefore, as quickly as we can, we are working to settle these claims and deliver on that promise.
Second, there is the issue of self-determination, what some call self-government. Quite simply, our effort toward self-government means that we are returning to the people their birthright, the birthright that is expected by all human beings, to make their own decisions over their own everyday lives, and this is necessary because the paternalistic attitudes of past governments gave Indian Affairs officials a most extraordinary and almost Orwellian control over the lives of Indian and Inuit people.
This big brotherism must now be reversed so that Indian and Inuit people are enabled to take their rightful place as equal participants in the affairs of this country, and that they do so having honed their skills through the experience that they have gained in running their own lives.
In the past, bands have been restricted as to what they may or may not decide without reference to the federal government through the Department of Indian Affairs. They have been unable to deal with such simple things as local problems like control of the dog population. They have had virtually no control over administration of funds used to provide basic services to a reserve. Direction over the welfare of their children was wrenched

November 27, 1989
Private Members' Business
away from them, frequently as were the children themselves.
Certainly, the questions of schooling and access to health care were totally under the direction of government bureaucrats who often made decisions according to their own perceptions rather than in response to the actual needs of the people.
All these things are being reversed under the progressive policies of this government and the leadership of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We are sensitive to the need to introduce these changes with great flexibility and with concern for the specific needs of each band, group or community. We know that what works for communities in the south in the highly populated areas will not always be appropriate and will not always apply to people in the more remote areas. Nevertheless, we also recognize that we must proceed at all levels without delay so that the degradation of the first citizens of this land is halted at once.
Our objectives are clear. We are fully committed to a full return of local decision making and power over local self direction to Indian and Inuit communities within the framework of the Constitution. This includes control over programs delivered by the federal government, and we have made great progress in these areas. For example, administrative control over funds provided for postsecondary education has been turned over to the Indian communities in Manitoba and in many other jurisdictions.
Many bands disperse social assistance on their own and run local municipal type services such as water, sewage and firefighting programs. More and more bands are running their own schools, employing educators and setting the curriculum according to community objectives and values. Bands are running housing projects, administering mortgage funding and planning community development programs. Bands own and manage construction companies, building schools, roads and other community facilities.
Out of these initiatives is growing a self confidence that will allow these native people to take full advantage of the new Canadian Economic Aboriginal Development Program introduced by this government in June. This is a program that over the next five years will see the injection of $874 million into the aboriginal community.
This will help to establish a renewal of the entrepreneurial spirit that is so natural to a self motivated people.
This is a program that is designed to help develop an economic base that will allow aboriginal people to grow and to thrive in financial independence. I am proud to say that there are hundreds of successful, incipiently successful, and looking forward to being successful Indian entrepreneurs out there, proving once again that the initiative is available when the opportunity is offered.
This is good news for many, many reasons, but most important because it puts the lie to the stereotypes of the aboriginal people that so many people have. These stereotypes are being put to bed in 100 different ways right across this land. They are evident to me as I travel from place to place visiting aboriginal communities throughout Canada. What I see is a people who are struggling to take hold, to gain control, to provide then-children with a new sense of tomorrow. I see successes everywhere I go because now people have what they lacked in the past. They finally have some hope.
Without doubt, there is much to be done and there are many new challenges before us as more and more young people drift into the cities looking for additional opportunities. This government will continue to respond flexibly and appropriately as the need arises.
Canadians at large and as individuals must also assume their own share of responsibility for easing aboriginal peoples over the adjustment period. I would suggest that we begin by learning about what the successes are of our native people and through that gain a new perspective and reflect a new respect for their ability to survive against tremendous odds. I can tell you that the more you know about the successes, the sooner that respect becomes admiration for those who have succeeded against those odds.
It is heartening also to see volunteer organizations such as the Canadian Council for Native Business springing up. It is a private sector organization led by key business leaders across Canada that encourages young native business entrepreneurs through a mentoring system to develop their business skills. In the final resolution, we will need many more such as these in order to complete the process of repairing the damage that past attitudes and policies have created.
November 27, 1989

I said already that much remains to be done. Daily we are learning new approaches through the collaborate process we have established with native leaders. In our five years of experience with the native question, we have not discovered a single magic solution, but we have developed a very strong sense that we are working toward the right goals, and we have many successes to bear that out.
Before European settlement of this land, the aboriginal people were self-reliant, self-governing, and they were totally self-resourceful. We have made some progress in restoring some of that responsibility. The task before us is to complete that process and that we complete it to the benefit of all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a point of order.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the subject matter which we are dealing with here and the urgency of it, I believe there is a five-hour debate. I am wondering if the Speaker could indicate to the House whether or not he has a list of those who wish to participate in debate because, Sir, I wish to add my name to those who wish to participate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake as the next speaker, the hon. member for Burlington, and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River on this first hour of the five-hour debate.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of this motion put forward by the member for Nunatsiaq which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider developing special initiatives, in consultation with
Aboriginal peoples, to respond to the serious employment,
education and health needs of Aboriginal youth.
The member has properly identified a key area of concern that requires immediate attention and a greater degree of priority in the government's planning activities. Young people of aboriginal origin face a tremendous challenge as they tiy to find their identity and their place in this large world of ours. Despite natural hurdles, as well as social and economic barriers, these young people must overcome obstacles put in their path by this federal government.
Private Members' Business
We must remember that Indian youth are growing up in a world much different than that which bred their elders. Indian youth are confused and frightened and unsure of their future. They live in a world ravaged by the frustrations of the generations that preceded them, and as they try to respond they receive conflicting messages about how to cope with those frustrations.
Like their elders, every time they witness progress being made on one front, they see a government betrayal on another. These are people who see their elders struggling to survive in a world that seems so much different from the world they see before them on the television signals coming into their homes. The messages they receive from the non-Indian world help to reinforce their feelings of mistrust and lack of confidence in their own ability to initiate change. Into this world of mistrust creeps abuse and victimization and sometimes violence. It is not a pleasant world, and it serves only to perpetuate poverty and despair.
Indian leaders across the country are addressing the problems facing Indian youth as best they can. As they look to the future, these leaders know their children must be armed with the knowledge of their history, their culture and their way of life, as well as the understanding that is necessary for achieving the social and economic goals they set for themselves. Indian leaders have identified, like the member from Nunatsiaq who has brought forward this motion today, that employment, education and health care for young people are the pillars on which their future will be built. Without opportunity, skills, patience, and a strong body, as well as mind, young Indian people will not have much of a future.
One thing I want to make clear in the developing of this motion before us today is the simple definition and interpretation of the word "aboriginal". I want to stress that, as the member who presents this motion represents in the strictest sense aboriginal people in Canada, and I support his motion in that regard. I also support the motion in the context that it applies to treaty people, those people who are the descendants of those who signed treaties with the Crown so that they could retain their inherent sovereignty and live as Indian people on their land forever. Treaty people include many of those who reside in my constituency and are equally concerned with the future of their children, and as such are working

November 27, 1989
Private Members' Business
to improve and develop employment, education, and health care opportunities.
When we as parliamentarians are addressing this government with plans for programs or policies, and we are addressing the needs of aboriginal people, the government must understand that our plans are not meant to distract from the plans or programs of all the people who may be aboriginal in origin, but who may be addressing their own special needs differently. I say this for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that the government tends in its public relations to regard all aboriginal people as the same, and as such reacts inappropriately with inappropriate legislation.
Chief Rolland Crowe of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations stated: "The actions and words of the present government are totally contradictory. On the one hand it says that Indians must retain and develop their cultural heritage and the political or social institutions; on the other hand the government has repackaged the termination policy as a devolution policy and thereby continues the Crown's apparent deliberate efforts to dilute and eventually eliminate the special status and rights of treaty Indian people!" This government obviously needs constant reminders that its responsibilities are to all aboriginal people, just as they are to all Canadians.
In that context, Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the position on education that was developed by one of the bands in the riding that I represent, The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. The Little Pine Band believes that education holds the key to the future for their children and for their band which they regard as a nation distinct in its own right. As such, the band is working to an education for their young people that is holistic in nature and encompasses the total and complete preparation of the young for active participation as responsible and competent individuals in society as a whole. The education received must provide not only for mental and academic development but also for moral, spiritual and physical development as well.
Let me quote from one of Little Pine Band's education planning documents: "Education must recognize the distinctive attributes and values of the traditional Indian culture and must seek to develop in young people a knowledge of their cultural background and heritage as well as a pride in being recognized as an Indian in society, both now and in the future. It is important that
young people be taught their special rights as guaranteed through the treaties. They must be helped to understand the spirit and intent of those treaties and to respect and honour their forefathers for their wisdom and foresight in negotiating the treaties which have granted the Indian bands status as distinct nations. People must not abuse their rights by expecting preferential treatment where it is not warranted and in such a way that their own sense of independence and responsibility is eroded. They must understand that these rights were intended to offer them opportunities to become functional, responsible and contributing citizens of their band and of Canadian society."
The Little Pine Band made these comments in a proposal to the Department of Indian Affairs last June. I supported those comments then and I continue to support them now. The department must be reminded of its responsibilities. I say that again, because often it reacts without thinking of those.
You will remember not too long ago when the department was doing what it should have done at the time, Mr. Speaker. A proposal was accepted that would see the construction of a school on Indian land that would prepare Indian youth for specific employment opportunities. That school, the All Nations Institute of Technology, was built on the Thunderchild Reserve, also an area within the boundaries of the Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency.
That school now sits empty and idle because the department forgot about its plan. Money for capital was easily found, but funds for operations disappeared. Money for the building alone will not educate or employ Indian people. The government must remember that Indian youth, to achieve the success they want to achieve, must be provided with the tools that are needed to build the bridges to that success. Those tools include, as the member pointed out, education, employment and health care.
Indian populations are growing and because a significant portion of that population is under the age of 20, it is imperative that further support systems be established to assist students to complete their studies. It is readily apparent by the high drop-out rates, particularly among Indian students in urban schools, that the system is not meeting their needs. A special effort must be made to get an Indian curriculum, Indian teachers, and Indian elders into the schools in the territories, on the reserves,
November 27, 1989

and in the urban centres where Indian populations warrant.
Keeping Indian and aboriginal youth interested in their education is not only an important part of the school system, it is an important part of the development of our society. What use will a good education be to an Indian youth if there are no jobs that will utilize the acquired skills and knowledge? As long as attitudes against the creation of Indian job development programs and economic opportunities persist, there will be little commitment or motivation from Indian youth to follow through and achieve that which is so much desired.
I take this opportunity in concluding my remarks to ask the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to immediately call together a meeting of Indian leaders, with the simple purpose of creating a special task force, a task force to be made up of Indian people who would have the duty to recommend initiatives that the federal government could take to respond to these serious employment, education, and health needs of Indian youth. If the minister would do this, it would address the concerns put forward by the motion today and, more important, provide us with specific direction and focus on one of this nation's most pressing social and human problems.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk about a topic of great concern, not only to the government, but to the people of Canada. While acknowledging the special needs of aboriginal youth, I would first like to applaud the many accomplishments of these young people in many fields.
Aboriginal youth have excelled in the arts, education and are increasingly making inroads in the private sector ventures. These achievements are particularly outstanding, considering the difficulties they often face in health, employment and education.
Given the importance of the aboriginal culture, both to the aboriginal people and the richness of the fabric of Canada, it is important that aboriginal youth are afforded every opportunity to support and to further their unique cultural heritage.
Private Members' Business
Each of us understands that the problems experienced by aboriginal youth are many. Every one of us appreciates that significant measures must be undertaken if we are to break the cycle of poverty in which too many of these young people find themselves trapped.
The future of any society rests with its young people. It is especially true for status Indians. Approximately 54 per cent of their population is under the age of 24, compared with 38 per cent of non-aboriginal Canadians.
The first nations of Canada are rightly anxious that these young people realize their full potential. Mr. Speaker, you will hear many members from this side of the House agree with that sentiment. You will hear us state that we are not at all satisfied with the state of affairs our aboriginal youth find themselves in. You will hear that while there have been improvements in many areas, this government remains deeply concerned about the conditions of aboriginal youth.
More specifically, we readily acknowledge that Canada has a long way to go before aboriginal people achieve the same standards of health, employment and education as other members of our society. But at the same time we are beginning to see positive developments and new opportunities that will significantly benefit aboriginal youth.
I would like to assure this House that the Minister of State for Youth and the Minister of Employment and Immigration remain dedicated to changing the conditions that have prevented aboriginal people from securing their rightful place in Canadian society. But we also acknowledge that a major reason behind the failure of past government efforts to improve the conditions of aboriginal people lies in the basic approach taken. Too often the programs were initiated by social planners who thought they knew all the answers and they were wrong.
It is now evident that the aboriginal people of Canada should assume control of the matters that directly affect their lives. That is why the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs has worked as closely as possible with the diverse groups that make up the First Nations of Canada to promote aboriginal self-government. He is

November 27, 1989
Private Members' Business
committed to a dramatic increase in local decision-making. He is determined to equip aboriginal governments with the increased powers within the framework of the Canadian constitution and he is ready to provide the aboriginal people with increased resources to achieve their objectives.
A key feature of self-determination lies in increasing employment opportunities for aboriginal people. There can be no doubt that we must work to improve the unemployment rate among aboriginal youth which is at 31.6 per cent, much higher than the national average of 11 per cent. We want aboriginal youth to take advantage of our shift in emphasis in employment and immigration, away from the passive income support programs and toward programs and services that will help people secure a stable niche in the labour market.
We want them in these programs because it is clear from all the statistics that aboriginal youth desperately need to be better equipped for the demanding requirements of a modern global economy.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, many training and employment initiatives undertaken by Employment and Immigration Canada have targeted aboriginal people as a top priority. Employment and Immigration Canada is committed to helping those who have difficulty entering or remaining in the work force. That is why the aboriginal peoples are one of the designated groups that receive special consideration in the programs we offer.
Projects have been launched under the Canadian Jobs Strategy all across the country to address the very real training concerns of our aboriginal peoples. For example, a life and work skills training project was recently launched in Vancouver, directed at unemployed native youth who have come into conflict with the law. This project, worth $331,538, was sponsored under our job entry program of the Canadian Jobs Strategy in co-operation with the Indian and Metis Society. It now employs 48 native people and is providing them with supervised work experience. The project provides alcohol and drug counselling and offers social orientation and anger control techniques for those who need it. This is the type of practical opportunity we are providing aboriginal peoples. By participating in these projects they receive important training that will allow them to enter the job market.
The life skills training they obtain in these programs is culturally based. Job placement assistance is provided and those needing further employment related training are directed to appropriate programs.
This is all part of our concentrated efforts under the Canadian Jobs Strategy to begin addressing the many inequities in the education and training that aboriginal peoples experience in Canada. In our concern, we have supported innovative efforts to meet the unique needs of aboriginal youth. In Regina and Winnipeg we have attempted to upgrade literacy among unemployed aboriginal street youth with our "Beat the Street" program. This is a unique undertaking that uses peer tutoring to reach street kids. Unemployed youth are often more receptive to the training offered by people who understand their situation, as the success of"Beat the Street" indicates. Participants in the program who have failed elsewhere have acquired the reading, the writing and the life and job skills they need to successfully enter the world of work.
Other examples of government efforts include the native internship program that has been successfully operated by the federal government since 1976. It is now being significantly expanded and operates under the Summer Challenge program offered by Employment and Immigration Canada. The native internship program creates summer employment and opportunities for aboriginal youth in the Employment and Immigration Canada offices throughout the country. It provides them not only with an income but training and work experience. This gives them the marketable skills that helps them successfully enter the job market. Since 1976 participation has increased from 65 to 586. Every effort is made in this program to provide employment in the federal service that supports the career and vocational aspirations of the aboriginal young people.
I know there is a lot of concern about the deplorable educational record of the aboriginal people in Canada. It is a problem that has bedevilled our government and many previous governments before us. All of our studies show that anyone, aboriginal or not, who drops out of high school severely restricts their economic and work prospects. Education clearly remains as the best way of avoiding unemployment. Yet we readily understand that the aboriginal youth drop-out rate is much, much higher
November 27, 1989

than any comparable group. We are determined to help them develop to their full potential.
One of the ways we do this is through our work orientation workshops, or WOW. These provide early school leavers with guidance on their future participation in the labour market. The WOW program provides a combination of workshops and on-the-job training to both orient young students to the world of work and encourage them to continue their education. It helps them to appreciate the importance of seeking specific skills training based on their future employment ambitions.
These are all part of our over-all approach of assisting youth. The development of comprehensive pilot projects such as the Canada-New Brunswick Youth Strategy and the Canada-Newfoundland Youth Strategy addresses the unemployment problems of youth in these provinces, with aboriginal youth being one of the groups being targeted for assistance.
These strategies address the very real difficulties young people face as they attempt to enter the labour force. For example, a key feature of these strategies is that preventive stay-in-school emphasis. This includes counselling, co-operative education programs and employment projects that will give students a realistic understanding of the workplace and the long-term benefits education provides.
In New Brunswick special attention is placed on high risk students from aboriginal backgrounds who are potential drop-outs. The Youth Strategies co-ordinate the current federal and provincial programs and services for youth; strengthen existing federal programs and services-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member is winding up?


William James Kempling: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
As I have already mentioned, aboriginal youth receive a very high priority. Recently, for example, we provided $140,000 to the Union of New Brunswick Indians to accept the Maleseet and Micmac youth in taking advantage of the full range of assistance under the Canada-New Brunswick Youth Strategy.
We have also provided almost $100,000 to the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council to ensure that the off-reserve aboriginal youth can better participate in the
Private Members' Business
Canada-New Brunswick Youth Strategy. Nevertheless, we are dedicated to a process of consultation, negotiation and co-operation. It is a process I am confident will lead us to a just resolution of the issues we face.
I would like to ensure the hon. member who put forward this resolution that we are firm in our commitment to provide aboriginal youth with job skills that will allow them to fully participate in the 21st century. Canada's ability to compete in the global markets of the future depends on the preparations we provide to today's young people. Our young people are our future.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Nunat-siaq for putting forward this private member's motion on aboriginal youth and for allowing me the opportunity to speak to this very important matter.
Initially, I was going to focus my remarks on education and economic development. However, I must address one other issue before addressing these topics. There have been some extremely disturbing stories recently involving teen suicides in the aboriginal communities in my riding.
We have often heard that the incidence of suicide in the native communities is higher than the national average. There is no question that this statement is an accurate one. But what is being done to lower the rate of teen suicide in the aboriginal communities is another situation. From what I have been told by the native leaders in my riding, there is not much being done. The Shibogama Tribal Council represents six native communities, located in an isolated area of northwestern Ontario. The six communities can only be reached by air. In the past two and a half years there have been 40 suicides in these communities which have a total population of less than 1,800.
The suicide rate in these communities is seven times higher than the national average. Native leaders in this Shibogama Tribal Council area are discouraged by the increase in suicides among their young people. They are most concerned with the increasing number of aboriginal youth who turn to suicide as a way of solving their problems.
The latest suicide occurred last week at Kingfisher Lake. A 16 year old boy ended his life. His death has left a void in the hearts of many residents of that community

November 27, 1989
Private Members' Business
of 300. The parents of this young man are devastated. Losing one's child to suicide is a most difficult experience for parents. Many questions are left unanswered, which makes the acceptance of death all the more painful. The community of Kingfisher Lake has experienced four such suicides in the past two years. While its native leaders continue to work hard at building their community for future generations, they are seeing their young people tom apart by violence, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse.
Earlier this summer I travelled to many of the native communities in my riding. Upon arrival at Wapekeka Indian reserve, the chief and council greeted me at the dock with the news that a 17 year old boy had taken his life the night before. He had been receiving treatment in Kenora at a drug and alcohol abuse treatment centre. I was taken to visit the boy's mother and other members of his family. What I saw has left a profound mark on me. The mother, the grandmother, the brother and sister of this young man were completely shattered by the news of their loved one's suicide. The whole community was grieving with the family. When one member of the community loses his or her life in such a violent and unnecessary fashion, the spark goes out of the eyes of the other members of the community and only pain, sorrow and helplessness are left.
At a native mental health seminar in Thunder Bay last month, Dr. Harvey Armstrong, head of the Canadian Psychiatric Association's native mental health section, said native parents are developing feelings of hopelessness and inadequacy because many of the children are damaging their minds with alcohol and chemicals. At the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians annual health conference in London, Ontario, earlier this month, native author and clergyman, Arthur Holmes, also related some disturbing statistics. He said 80 per cent of Indians die in either unexpected or violent ways.
Canadians would never accept these kinds of statistics in non-native communities. Cries for help would be listened to and acted upon. So, why do we have a different set of standards for the aboriginal communities? As legislators we must find solutions to the many problems and issues before us.
The 1986 report of the special Senate committee on youth dedicated a complete chapter to native youth and the problems they face. In a section on suicide, and drug and alcohol abuse, the committee said:
We believe that drug and alcohol counselling and suicide prevention programs need to be designed and carried out by native people themselves.
The report goes on to say:
The most successful programs seem to involve young people helping other young people and providing healthy alternatives for solving their problems.
I have been a witness to the success of crisis intervention programs in three of the native communities in my riding.
In 1980 the communities of Grassy Narrows, Whitedog and Whitefish Bay, faced with high unemployment and welfare, were confronted with a major crisis. The young native people were either in the care of the Children's Aid Society, under the supervision of the probation and after-care service or involved in substance abuse. The native leaders recognized the need for crisis intervention programs and they designed programs in their communities which are run by them and for them. With financial assistance from Health and Welfare's National Native Alcohol and Drug and Abuse Program, the the crisis intervention programs in these three communities have been a tremendous success.
Recent statistics from the Grassy Narrows, Whitedog and Whitefish Bay communities show an 80 per cent decrease in the rate of violent deaths, an 80 per cent decrease in the suicide rate, a 90 per cent decrease in young offenders and an 80 per cent decrease in solvent abuse. All of this, over a seven-year period. These are very encouraging statistics and testimony to the statement of the special Senate committee on youth which stated that prevention programs designed and carried out by native people are the most successful.
The communities of Grassy Narrows, Whitedog and Whitefish Bay have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can turn things around in their respective communities with adequate financial and moral support.
While funding for the crisis intervention program in these three communities in my riding has continued to decrease substantially, the programs continue, but with great difficulty. Earlier this year, the crisis intervention
November 27, 1989

programs almost became a target in the federal budget cuts.
The native leaders travelled to Ottawa with me and met with Health and Welfare officials and managed to salvage some of the funding. You see, Mr. Speaker, the crisis intervention programs at Grassy Narrows, White-fish Bay and Whitedog, are not an actual program of the department. This program was designed by the native leaders for their people. Any other native community attempting to obtain funding for similar programs have been turned down. The department has not recognized this program as an "official program".
I honestly believe that funds should be immediately set aside which would allow every native community in this country to design and administer a crisis intervention program which best addresses the individual needs of each community. We would see declines in the rate of violent death, suicide and substance abuse in very short time. We have an opportunity to invest in the future of aboriginal youth in this country. It is recognized worldwide that our youth are the future. We can give aboriginal youth a future filled with hope and future built on hope.
Now is the time for the government to act. Now is the time for us to put our money where our mouth is. We must do so in order to prevent the suicide rate from climbing any further. The cultural and economic survival of the aboriginal people depend on it.
I realize I have very little time left, Mr. Speaker, so I will use it to touch briefly on the education of aboriginal youth. It is no secret that education programs in native communities fall below the provincial standards. For years, native leaders have attempted to design curriculum which is tailor-made to the needs of the respective communities.
As the Department of Indian Affairs prepares for the transfer of education programs to Indian control, it is essential that such a transfer take place with the full consultation of the aboriginal people. There is a great fear among the native leaders that once this transfer takes place the financial resources will not be there for curriculum development. This is why a full consultative process must be established. Curriculum development in
Private Members' Business
native communities is tantamount to the future of these communities.
If the aboriginal youth receive a sound education with curriculum designed by their leaders for them, I believe we will see an increase in enrolment in the post-secondary institutions in this country. The difficulties many of the post-secondary native students have in completing their studies stems from an inadequate curriculum at the elementary and secondary levels. They are literally thrown into a system which is virtually foreign to them and they are not adequately prepared for it.
I would like to see the department provide the necessary resources to allow the native educators the opportunity to begin designing curriculum now, before the transfer of education programs take place. This way, once the transfer takes place, the communities would be ready to proceed with curriculum suited to their needs.
There are so many more issues concerning aboriginal youth which I could speak on. While I have yet to address the issue of economic development, let me say this much. There is no doubt in my mind that tf the government were to provide the financial resources needed which would allow native leaders to design crisis intervention programs for the communities and curriculum for the schools based on their needs and cultural beliefs, we would see a dramatic increase in post-secondary and native graduates who would return to the communities and work for the betterment of their people.
I have seen what economic development can do for a community. People have jobs. They are happy and living life to the fullest. Economic development works in the single industry towns and it works in aboriginal communities.
In closing, I would again like to thank my hon. colleague for Nunatsiaq for putting forward this motion and I call on all members to support it in the interest of aboriginal youth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the list in the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

November 27, 1989
Government Orders




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the three parties. According to the House order we were scheduled to finish off debate tonight at 10 o'clock but I understand that the Liberal party has 17 speakers who wish to address the issue tonight, the New Democratic Party has three speakers who would like to address the issue and we, ourselves, have six.
So, it is possible that we may have to go beyond 10 o'clock. You will find that there is an agreement among the three parties to not see the clock at 10 o'clock and we also have a further agreement not to have any dilatory motions or any other motions between now and that time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate because this country has, at this time, no abortion legislation. It has not had any since January 28, 1988 when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the existing legislation adopted by this House in 1969.

Mr. Speaker, it took two years and meanwhile, as a result of this government's failure to act, the private lives of Canadian men and women were paraded through the media. We had some flagrant examples of this last summer. We have had two years of stormy, divisive and sometimes even troubling debate. The 1988 election campaign was a time when the abortion issue created some very difficult situations.
For many years I have had a chance to read and listen to the comments of my constituents in Ottawa-Vanier,
and many of them support my position, which is that of a moderate. I have noticed that pro-choice people are not as extreme as people think. They do not necessarily favour abortion on demand. Nor do they consider abortion as an alternative to contraception. The less extreme proponents of pro-life accept or at least say they can accept abortion as a last resort in cases of incest, rape or when the mother's life is at risk.
If I had to indicate where I stand between the two, I think I would qualify as moderate pro-life. I am against abortion on demand, but I realize that in some situations, abortion may be necessary. Of course I would prefer to live in a society where the issue did not arise. However, reality is different, and as a legislator and a Member of this Parliament, I cannot look the other way and ignore the problem.
Bill C-43, the bill before the House today is, in my view, too permissive and unfair in its present form. The bill is ambiguous, to say the least. For instance, some people read the bill and say that in its present form it supports pro-life. Others read the same bill and say that, substantially, it is pro-choice. One doctor, on the basis of his personal values and religious beliefs, might be able to justify and promote abortion on demand. Another doctor, however, either from a different part of the country or even from the same town, might reject abortion on any grounds. In remote areas, where health services are limited, this could become a real nightmare.
In any case, Bill C-43 shifts the whole burden of responsibility to the doctor. The government and this Parliament are asking him to be clairvoyant and to predict the mother's moral, psychological, physical and mental health after the abortion.
Of 65,000 abortions done annually in Canada, nearly 50 per cent were sought by young women under 25. These statistics show that something is very wrong and that something must be done as soon as possible. The legislation before the House today does nothing to eliminate the reasons why women resort to abortion.
To be acceptable, a national policy should urge and enable the parties concerned to make a rational decision. To do so, we must create a secure environment. A good start would be counselling. Although this is certainly not the only answer, it could promote a dialogue and generate a positive attitude to pregnancy. A well structured family policy could also help secure the well being of the child to be bom. What about the daycare we have
November 27, 1989

been promised for two years and which has yet to materialize?
With Bill C-43, the government has, as I see it, tried to please everyone. It has shrugged off its responsibilities by shifting the burden of responsibility to the doctor. Mr. Speaker, is the doctor responsible for making a distinction between legal responsibility and moral values? I don't think so.
I think the potential interpretations of Bill C-43 are as numerous as our medical practitioners.

In a perfect world we would not need to have abortions. In this imperfect world, we have to address this issue. I believe, for one, that legislation controlling abortions is needed.
It took two years for this government to bring forward legislation to fill the legal vacuum created when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the existing 1969 legislation because it breached the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. After two years of this Conservative Government, Bill C-43 is their best effort. It is far from perfect and it falls short of my personal position on the issue. It needs to be amended in committee.
Some members have told us that they reject this legislation in principle, and will vote in the negative at second reading. I can understand that position. But if the majority believes this bill is wrong in principle and should be defeated tomorrow, then we are faced with the status quo. That is, no abortion legislation. We all know that only the government can bring in enabling legislation and order its consideration by Parliament. Bill C-43, I repeat, is this government's best effort. If defeated, we are not likely to have another bill in this Parliament, thereby confirming the status quo, and that is abortion on demand.
On the other hand, if the majority accepts the principle of Bill C-43, then in my view it should go to committee for study of its clauses. Amendments will be possible to deal with the substance of the bill and redress, I would hope, its imperfections.
I dare say that those who vote against the bill at second reading, being the principle of the bill, will have some convincing to do in committee to substantively amend something to which they object in principle.
Government Orders
Once this bill is in committee it acquires a special status by virtue of it being the object of a free vote for most of us in this House. In committee it will be subjected to scrutiny by backbenchers-no members of the Cabinet will be present-freed from party lines and the discipline of the Whips. Whatever happens to the bill in committee will be the result of our own best efforts, not the government anymore.
As a legislator, I know the great difficulties members will face in coming up with a more acceptable bill. I hope we can meet this very difficult double challenge of respecting, on the one hand, the constitutional requirements as set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with regard to the rights of the women, and also address the legislative demands, in my view, in matters of abortion.
I shall vote for this legislation at second reading and I pray the committee will succeed in amending it.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, during my ten years as the Member of Parliament for Peterborough very few issues have been as emotional and morally frustrating or as unnerving as the issue of abortion. With regard to abortion we have been living in a permissive society since the Liberal government passed the abortion law in 1969.
The Conservative government, 20 years later, is now introducing Bill C-43 which will not offer one speck of hope to the more than 65,000 foetuses that are aborted annually. This might explain in part why the present Liberal leader is considering, according to the press, supporting Bill C-43.
Citing Section 251 of the Criminal Code as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court, in 1988, sent a clear message to Parliament to draft new legislation that would balance with the woman's constitutional rights the interest that society has shown in the foetus. Might I point out, Mr. Speaker, that Supreme Court Justice Wilson, in her comments following the Supreme Court hearings, said:
The primary objective of the impugned legislation -
-speaking of the current legislation-

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
- is the protection of the foetus. This is perfectly valid legislation as an objective. It has other ancillary objectives, such as the protection of the life and health of the pregnant woman and the maintenance of proper medical standards.
The value to be placed on the foetus as potential life is directly related to the stage of its development during gestation.
Finally, from Supreme Court Justices McIntyre and Laforest:
Historically, there has always been a clear recognition of a public interest in the protection of the unborn and there is no evidence or indication of general acceptance of the concept of abortion at will in our society.
It is my contention that Bill C-43, which is packaged in pro-life terminology, is legislation which calls for nothing less than abortion on demand as a legal right. Bill C-43, I regret to say, puts society's permissive call for personal comfort and gain ahead of society's call for respect of human life at every stage of its development. I consider Bill C-43 to be morally repugnant. It mirrors a time in history when blacks were slaves and society held a higher regard for their own personal comfort and gain than they did for the rights of slaves held in bondage and not considered to have any rights whatever.
Today's legislation needs to reflect a society that supports life at all stages of development and which will enable children to be raised with dignity. In the drafting of the bill I had hoped for a closer adherence to the direction of the Supreme Court in the Morgentaler decision, that the interests of both the woman and the foetus could be considered. The legislation before us manages to dance around this requirement and does absolutely nothing in reality to protect the foetus.
The bill states that abortion is illegal at all stages of pregnancy and then it goes on to say, except for all circumstances of health. By allowing a woman to have an abortion on mental, physical and psychological health grounds the government is giving women carte blanche rights to have an abortion for any reason they so wish by simply convincing a medical practitioner that the reason warrants such action.
Very few people in my riding support abortion for socio-economic reasons. Under Bill C-43, or under the former bill by the Liberals in 1969, it can be easily shown that strain on the mother results in serious psychological
impact on her health and consequently she can be granted an abortion for psychological reasons.
With Bill C-43 in place all that is needed to have an abortion is a pregnant mother, Dr. Morgentaler and a free-standing abortion clinic. These three ingredients are now available in Ontario and Quebec and will continue as they are with the blessing of this Parliament and the provincial governments of both Ontario and Quebec. Nowhere in Bill C-43 do we offer any protection whatever for the rights of the foetus, only for the mother's rights to have an abortion.
Only two short weeks ago, on November 16, the Supreme Court justices, in presenting their reasons for overturning the injunction against Chantal Daigle in August, refused to comment on foetal rights outside of the province of Quebec. The same court, however, in the Morgentaler decision gave the government an indication that foetal rights could be provided under new legislation. The government, in my view, has failed to take up this challenge with Bill C-43.
I must now indicate my unwillingness to support or to endorse Bill C-43. The only possible legislation that I could support would be that which makes abortion illegal at all stages of pregnancy except in the case where the life of the mother is seriously threatened.
Here is the reason why I do not feel we can move along by approving second reading and expect major substantial changes either in committee, in the House as a whole or at third reading. As it is mandatory for cabinet to vote for this bill with no options, it is obvious to me that any substantive changes such as I would require as a pro-life supporter will never come to pass. Therefore, I cannot and will not support this legislation at second reading, report stage or third reading. I feel that although it would be possible to enact a law which would protect all human life from the moment of conception to death, to attempt to do this within the realm of the legislation before us would require such a deviant move from the underlying principles of the bill that it would be virtually impossible.
The Minister of Justice is on record as saying that the government will not accept any amendments that further restrict a woman's access to abortion, according to The Toronto Star of November 25.
November 27, 1989

I spoke earlier about our permissive society that puts people's personal comfort and gain ahead of people's rights and needs. I would like to close with a short quote from the former president of the Catholic Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Hayes. He said:
Abortion is the destruction of human life. The challenge is to change our society's attitudes toward life and to channel the energies and strong emotions involved in this debate toward correcting mentalities and situations that lead to abortion. We need to create a society that supports life and enables children to be raised with dignity; a society that puts other people's rights and needs ahead of personal comfort and gain; a society that respects human life at every stage of its development.
As a Member of Parliament, and as a man who just two weeks ago became a grandfather for the fourth time, I could not agree more. We must, therefore, defeat this bill, defeat it at second reading, and concentrate our efforts on a piece of legislation that will provide the unborn with significant rights as a human being. I remind this House of elected representatives that when last given an opportunity to vote on this issue more Members of Parliament from all sides of this House supported a pro-life position than any of the other options that were available to us at that time.
So it is important that we defeat the bill. With our free vote I would like to show the Canadian people that Parliament wants to offer more protection to the foetus and reduce abortions in Canada.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness, and indeed considerable anger, that I rise to address this House on the subject before us, namely, the recriminalization of abortion in Canada.
I have given a great deal of thought to what I would say on this sad day, both in response to Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, and in response to speeches made by some of the spokespersons supporting this criminalization legislation.
Most have spoken with great sincerity. Some have spoken to rationalize their compromise of basic beliefs. Some have done so to retain positions of power, and the saddest part is that they should even have to make that choice.
Equally sad is that many women must often face bearing a child not of their choosing, but what is tragic is that they must, if this bill passes, make decisions with the threat of criminal sanction.
Government Orders
In addition, a woman must approach her doctor who also has the weight of criminal sanction to contend with, and the doctor must decide whether an abortion for her is legal. I contend that the choice is no longer one of whether or not abortion is the appropriate course of action for the woman, but whether or not, if an abortion is sought, it will be legal in her circumstance.
I have spent most of my working life advocating, in one way or another, for women; most often low income women. I have seen the great distress women have faced with unplanned and unexpected pregnancy. I have seen the results of incredibly difficult decisions. I have known women who died because abortion was not legally available and, in desperation, they had put themselves in the hands of back room butchers.
I have seen women who carried to term and delivered children that they allowed to be placed for adoption, in the hope that the child would have a better life, and then spent a lifetime of torment longing for that child. I have seen women who faced pregnancy from failed birth control, or the inability to afford birth control, left alone with the consequences.
I have seen women who have made a difficult choice, harassed and harangued by people who claim to care about them, not just outside clinics, but daily in the media. And along with all Canadians, I watched the tragedy this past summer of young women dragged through the courts, having every intimate detail of their lives dissected on the evening news.

To my sisters from Quebec, I would like to say that I am glad the Supreme Court has guaranteed our right to choose under the Quebec Charter. And it is a right we hope to preserve for all women in Canada.

I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the whole question of abortion has been elevated to the level of emotionalism that we have seen in the past few years by a concerted and a sustained effort, but the true underlying question before us is the question of power.
Throughout history women have been the subject of control by men. The dictionary definition of power is "a position of ascendancy over others". Throughout the history of religion and civilization women's place has

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
been assigned by men based on their reproductive capacity.
Often women's position has been elevated. Women have been put on a pedestal, so to speak, to control their actions and participation in society. For example, women did not work outside the home because it was not their place. The fact that this only applied to women who came from well-to-do circumstances had nothing to do with society's attitude. Poor women, who have always worked, were not in the equation. Women, until 60 years ago, were not considered persons. Society has finally recognized how absurd this attitude was and few today would dare advocate turning back the clock. Twenty-five years ago women could not have access to birth control unless they were married. Men had access but not the societal responsibility for the outcome.
Today, in some jurisdictions, a woman still must have signed permission from her husband for a tubal ligation, but her husband is not required to seek her consent for a vasectomy.
Some of these practices have been codified in the past. Some are merely practices. But in either case, they are norms established by men for women. They are norms established by those who have always participated as partners in the process that leads to pregnancy but have never, to this very day, been required to participate in the consequences of pregnancy, much less be required to take responsibility for these consequences. Indeed, men are physiologically unable to face the same consequences as women.
Elere we are today faced with yet another law, another criminal sanction, drafted, debated and passed, mostly by men who will never bear the consequences of their decision.
Throughout the discussion in this House, men have stood and passed judgment on women and their ability to make thoughtful, responsible choices regarding reproductive rights. They have demeaned women. They have cast them again on a false pedestal saying: "We know what is best for you and we will decide what is good for you". In other words, they are saying: "We will continue to exercise power over you".
One of my colleagues, earlier in the debate, said: "One would wonder if this type of bill, based on this concept of women, would be before this House if this
House were made up of 255 women and 40 men instead of its present make-up of 255 men and 40 women".
The Minister responsible for the Status of Women stated in this House:
The last time I spoke in this place on the issue before us, I began by saying that I speak on behalf of those women who have been faced with bearing a child not of their choosing. Once again, I rise on behalf of those women.
She went on to say:
Since I first uttered those words we have no law in this country regarding abortion. In the view of many women including myself the absence of legislation appeared to respect what I believe, that the judgment of women faced with a difficult decision and their capacity to make a better decision than anyone in this chamber on their behalf was respected in that environment.
I concur with the minister's statements. I find it impossible, however, to believe her later remarks that to provide a framework for women in the world as it is, and not as we would like it to be, the solution is to support this motion to re-criminalize abortion.
If women in the past had been prepared to live the world as it was and failed to struggle for the world as we would like it to be, we would still not be persons, we would not have the vote and some of us would not be Cabinet ministers.
The criminal sanction is dressed up differently than past laws. Its greatest distinction is that it is purported to please no one. I suspect that it will possibly secretly please those who would maintain power over women.
This criminal sanction says to women: You are not capable of making your own moral decision. You must attend your doctor on the basis of a medical decision. Your doctor will make the final choice. If that choice is deemed wrong, your doctor will have to prove to the satisfaction of the courts that the procedure was legal. In so proving the legality of his or her decision it is you and every detail of your personal life that will be examined.
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General, when he introduced the bill, said:
The proposed new abortion law is understandable, it is workable and it is fair.
I suggest it is not understandable. It is not understandable to me why this government feels compelled to re-criminalize abortion. I suggest it is not workable. It is not workable because it is vague and creates the requirement to establish a whole new set of jurisprudence and risks withdrawal of doctors from performing abortions, especially if some are charged under this law. It is not fair. It is not fair to present a law that completely takes the final choice out of the hands of the woman and places it in the hands of her doctor while the threat of
November 27, 1989

criminal law looms overhead. As well, this legislation to re-criminalize abortion is unacceptable for Canadian women.
One of the special things about this House is the respect members accord each other. We address each other as honourable, knowing that we try to acquit ourselves with dignity, honour and integrity. I plead with the hon. members in this House to accord the women of Canada the same respect, knowing that they will acquit themselves with dignity, honour and integrity.
In this world, as women struggle to establish their rights and freedoms, I submit to all hon. members the words of J.S. Woodsworth: "What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all".


Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, after listening very carefully to Hon. Members whose speeches reflected widely divergent opinions; after reading Bill C-43, an Act respecting abortion, a subject that has been extremely controversial for many years; after long discussions with many of my constituents in Ahuntsic, people whose opinions are varied and diverse; after a thorough study of the impact on abortion of our society and the moral, ethical, social, economic and demographic aspects of this issue, one which compels Canadians to examine their democratic conscience as well as their moral values; and after consulting experts on the subject such as physicians, legislators, lawyers, priests and ministers, Catholics, those of the Orthodox faith, Protestants and atheists, today, Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to give my opinion of this bill, and be as objective as I can.
First of all, I would like to say that as a Member of Parliament, a woman and former nurse, in other words, someone with a respect for life, I will vote in favour of this bill which provides a judicious and clear response to all the concerns and questions I may have had since the debate started in the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, my support for Bill C-43 is not just a matter of subjective
Government Orders
emotion and deep-seated feeling, it is a reasoned and rational decision.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, coming as it does after the Supreme Court's judgment in the Morgentaler case in January 1988, is intended to fill a legal vacuum, in response to demands by Canada's modem, pluralistic society. Since our society is not monolithic, its members holding various beliefs and views, it was imperative that this legislation should strike a balance between women's constitutional rights and society's interest in protecting the foetus. This means, Mr. Speaker, that these two fundamental rights are entirely compatible: the right of the woman to control her own body and her own destiny, and that of the foetus which, although unfortunately, it has yet to be recognized by the Supreme Court, is nevertheless a moral value that no normal society would be able to reject indefinitely.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when legislators, human rights activists and even the United Nations are talking about children's rights, minority rights and women is rights, a perverse selfishness that stifles all feelings of compassion and generosity leads us to ignore the rights of the foetus which is, at whatever stage of its development- embryology and the latest scientific techniques such as ultrasound prove it-a being in essence, in other words, a human being that is genetically alive. To talk about the rights of this fragile and voiceless being is, according to some people, tantamount to preaching in the wilderness and having opinions that are reactionary and outdated.
If, as these modernists claim, morality changes as new scientific discoveries are made, then I say those who speak for the unborn are pioneers, working towards a future where the rights of all will be respected, including the rights of the foetus. What future is there for a society that is unmoved by its own voluntary extinction and does not fight for its survival? What future is there for a country that, if it does not pass laws on such an essential issue, is doomed to a geometrical decline in its birth rate? The primary objective of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to reconcile two fundamental rights that are complementary and equal.
The second objective of this legislation is to provide fair and reasonable access to abortion, while preventing abuse and charlatanism. We know that many women, especially young women, left to themselves, accept willingly or are forced into some abortion practices that endanger their own physical and psychological health. For all the reasons that have already been given, abor-

Government Orders
tion must not be a form of birth control. It is therefore our duty as a responsible government to protect the life and health of the women in our country. This bill does so by removing several administrative obstacles, such as therapeutic abortion committees. These took a long time to make a final decision and thus prevented women from fully exercising their right to a legal abortion, thereby infringing on their physical and psychological health.
But, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, what is most important and what convinced me that this bill is positive and fair is the doctor's involvement in this big decision. For me, this is not paternalistic; the doctor will not tell the woman in an authoritarian way what choice or decision to make. Whatever decision she makes, she will always need to call on a doctor to perform an abortion and thus abortion is first and foremost a medical procedure. Who, Mr. Speaker, is in a better position than the doctor, with his scientific knowledge, professional ethics and practice, to make a definite decision that will take into account the woman's health, the foetus' rights and society's responsibilities?
Furthermore, the doctor who performs an abortion as prescribed by law for medical reasons related to physical, mental and psychological health is, according to the generally recognized standards of his profession, responsible for monitoring the woman after her abortion. He is inevitably involved and takes part in this process, like it or not. The bill simply confirms his deep involvement in providing an abortion. He is not acting as a moral adviser but as a qualified professional trained to make such a dicision. This decision is not unilateral but is made together with the women, for health reasons and with full respect for her freedom.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, some groups stubbornly criticize the criminalization of abortion. The Government has no alternative, since placing abortion in the Criminal Code was the only way for Parliament to regulate abortion nationally.
If abortion is performed in the legal framework, in accordance with legislation that is in the interest of our civilized society and defends the rithts of both the foetus and the women, I do not see how one could deliberately go against such a piece of legislation, because it is a reasonable compromise among all the opposition tendencies in our society. Bill C-43 is based on consensus, unity, not division, reconciling basic differences and
eliminating unyielding opposition. It is a bill which, like our country, is built on compromise and dialogue. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I support it with all my heart and all my mind.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, life is precious. Some five days ago I found I had reason to believe this more and more as just three hours ago I left the hospital with a health problem.
I wanted to take part in this debate because during the 15 years since I was first elected to Parliament in 1974 there have been only a handful of issues which have touched the very soul of this nation, issues which have required that we look inside ourselves and make decisions which affect not only us but which will affect all of our fellow citizens for generations to come. I would list in this category capital punishment, the Constitution, the free trade bill, and now abortion.
Abortion has been discussed for many years not only in this nation but around the world. There are a few things I would like to make clear at the outset. I speak today not only as the representative of the people of the Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold riding; I also speak as a grandfather, a father, a son and a brother. I speak as a friend to all those people who have entrusted to me the duty to speak on their behalf. Like other members in this House I too have searched very deeply into my own soul.
I have sought advice from friends and scholars, from people whom I respect a great deal, from people who are in favour of abortion and from people who are opposed. After having digested all of this information I have decided the course of action which I will follow.
Abortion is no more and no less than the taking of human life. This bill fortifies the idea that there can be in this country abortion on demand. I base my thoughts on logic. You see, life must begin sometime. There are those who argue that life begins at the moment of conception. Some will say after 12 weeks and others will say after 20 weeks. The legal definition is that life begins at the moment that you come out of the womb and from that moment on you have the protection of the law. As for me, I believe that life begins at the moment of conception for if I do not believe that, then life must begin at some arbitrary point. I say "arbitrary" because you can take any time, from one week of gestation to 12
||

*

November 27, 1989

weeks to 30 weeks, but you must always go back and say that life begins sometime.
If life does not begin at conception, then why can we not legislate that life begins one hour after you come out of the womb? In that way if someone were to be bom with a deformity or illness then we could destroy this non-human and our consciences would be clear. Why do we not say that you are not legally a person until you are one-year old for greater certainty that there would not be any problems with the child? To me, Mr. Speaker, life begins at conception. To take any step back from that is not logical.

If life begins at conception, as I believe, it follows that this person, or entity that is becoming a person, must enjoy the same rights as I, who have been bom. I believe that the foetus has inalienable rights, in particular the right to be born we all have and the right to security of the person.

To say that the foetus is not a human until a certain time is to condemn ourselves and future generations to arbitrary decisions as to when we are or are not human. Let me explain.
It was not so very long ago, approximately half a century ago, that one madman declared that there were certain races which were superior to others. Then so decreeing he sought to have a final solution for a whole race of people: the Jews.
But he did not stop with the Jews. He went on from there to clean the streets of what he called cripples, homosexuals and the mentally handicapped, people that he and his henchmen determined undesirable. Their solution was simple. It was to kill these people. To hide their heinous crimes they burnt them in the hopes that the bones and ashes would never be found. As I contemplate these clinics and hospitals in which we abort our young, whether it be at four or thirty weeks, I see the remains thrown out like so much garbage. I am moved to
Government Orders
wonder: could not one of these or some of these have helped our society to become a better place?
They say we should abort because a child would be bom into circumstances where they would not be wanted, where they would be subject to physical punishment, where indeed they would be emotionally scarred. I am not unaware of this. I know that children who are not wanted are bom into this world, that they are not cared for, and that they are abused. Even with this in mind I know full well that there are people who have survived these circumstances and risen above them. Should they not have a chance, just as you and I have?
Is there anyone here who had a perfect childhood? Is there anyone who did not have his cuts and bruises and emotional scars and yet we go on as best we can? Abortion is wrong. Abortion is morally wrong. I believe that we were put on this earth because we have a destiny to fulfil. Our destiny, I believe, is to live good lives as best we can and try to help our fellow man, not destroy him.
Women often resort to abortion because they cannot see any other way. There are other ways. We should help them during pregnancy. We should give them the choice to keep or to give their child to couples who want to adopt. We the government should be helping them, not hindering them.
If you asked me where there are any circumstances under which an abortion could be performed, I would say to you yes. I believe that an abortion can be performed when the physical life of the mother is in danger. That means that you will or you want to save the life of the mother. You do not will or want the death of a child. The child's death is incidental to the good that you want to accomplish.
There are those who say: "Well, can't the mother make a choice on her own"? Once again, I am hard pressed to answer. But would you grant the mother the right to kill a child if she no longer wanted the child and the child was three, four, or five years old? The child belongs to her and although the child is outside her, does she not still care for it? Is the child still not her responsibility?
In this debate, Mr. Speaker, you will hear many voices raised in the defence of the rights of women. What we

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
have here are really two conflicting rights: the rights of women and the rights of the unborn. I have tried to straddle the fence. I have tried to find a compromise, but there are some things in life, my colleagues, for which there is no compromise. An abortion is one of them.
I respect those who in this debate will speak about the rights of women. I surely have no quarrel with them, but I have chosen to speak for the unborn because to my way of thinking you cannot satisfy both. I know full well in taking this decision that it will not be politically popular. It is a sans dire that it is women who vote. There are no votes among the unborn.
But this decision is not a political one, nor do I say it is a political one for you, my colleagues. It is not made to garner votes or to try to appease one side or the other. This decision is made because I believe it is the right decision.
In the final analysis whichever way we decide collectively, the fact is I must still live with myself. I would ask you, my colleagues, before you cast your votes to reflect on another issue which is at the other end of the life spectrum. It is a nice sounding name. It is called euthanasia.
If we decide today to kill at the beginning of the life spectrum, I wonder how far we are away from deciding to kill at the other end. In Norway they used to have what they called passive euthanasia, passive mercy killing. Now they have, shall I use the word progressed or regressed to the point where they are using active euthanasia.
Will the day come when we will decide that someone who reaches 100 years should be killed even though he or she is healthy? How long will it be before we lower that age until it is 80 or 70 or 60, all under the guise that this planet cannot support so many people? And, how long will it be before we look at our mentally, emotionally and physically handicapped and say, no, only the strong will survive in our society, you must be sacrificed? I suggest to you that these things will occur in the lifetime of rtiany of the members who are in this House now.
There are those who shy away from the word "murder", but I do not. The word "murder" is defined as an action causing the destruction of human life which is regarded as morally wicked, whether legal or not. Further down it says, it is a terrible slaughter and a destruction of life.
Is there anyone in this House, is there anyone in Canada who will deny that abortion is the destruction of life? Is there anyone in Canada who will deny that the taking of an innocent life is wrong? I base my stand on the fact that life does begin at the moment of conception and life is so precious that it must be defended all the way through the life process.
If we deny the rights of the unborn today we will be denying the rights of all Canadian citizens in one way or another tomorrow. I will have no part of this action. I will vote against Bill C-43 and everything that is in it.
To those of you in this House who say that history will be your judge, I leave you to history. My judge has been around a little bit longer.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, it is with heartfelt concern that I rise today to join in the debate on abortion.
At this point in the debate it might seem that every point of view has been covered and that we need not hear more, but I believe it is important for each member to be heard on this issue so that our constituents might know that whatever decision we have come to we have not come to it lightly and that we have taken into consideration all the various points of view presented to us in the last few months.
I believe that life begins at conception. This is one of the biggest problems that I have with Bill C-43. Certainly it implies that life begins at conception since it purports to provide some protection to the foetus from the moment of conception until birth. However, there is precious little protection there, and there is no explicit statement that the life in the foetus is a life like any other life including that of its mother.
This means that the fundamental test, the health of the mother, is not balanced by the other fundamental test, the health of the foetus, when the doctor and mother are making their decisions. This is the core of the abortion debate. It is a debate about rights, the rights of mothers, fathers and unborn children. On the one hand, there are those who believe that the mother has the right to self-determination, to make choices that concern her own body and her future. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the unborn child has a right to life and that this right must be protected.
November 27, 1989

Any bill that would receive my support must recognize explicitly this right of the unborn child. I believe the rights of women and all Canadians to control their own bodies and to shape their own future must be secured. However, just as my rights are limited by the fundamental rights of others, I also believe that a woman's rights over her own body are limited by her unborn child's fundamental right to life. This balancing of rights takes place every day in our society to prevent chaos, to protect life, and to defend the democratic nature of this nation. I believe it must also take place in the case of abortion.
As far as choice is concerned, I believe that choices must be made before conception, not after. For this reason, despite grave misgivings, I am willing to consider abortion in cases of rape or incest as I do not believe that a woman should be forced to carry a child that she has been forced to conceive.
I also believe that abortion can be considered where a mother's life is in real danger. These are examples of the difficult decisions that must be made when rights are balanced for I fully concede that the foetus is never a guilty party.
There are many things about this bill that bother me, not the least of these is the fact that we appear to be approaching the problem from the wrong direction. One of the most serious factors contributing to abortion is what might be called the crisis pregnancy. It can happen at any socio-economic level in society, as we are all well aware. The crisis is defined by each individual woman's own situation.
This bill treats abortion solely in criminal terms, but what we need is much broader access to programs which focus care on people in need and which make raising and having children a primary aim of our society.
There are many programs which could reduce the apparent demand for abortions. I am thinking of some simple things such as better access to psychological counselling and birth control education, of tax laws that do not discriminate against parents who wish to stay home and raise their children, of laws which do not make it difficult for single mothers to get an education and child support; simple things like the need to reverse the trend which discourages adoption by mature couples in
Government Orders
favour of encouraging young women to keep children that they are not ready to cope with.
One of my main reasons for getting into politics was a desire to make things simpler. I am well aware that this bill, Bill C-43, appears to be simple and straightforward. I am very concerned that it is just a simple band-aid on a very complicated social illness and that we are doing almost nothing to solve the basic problem which to my view is that society has begun to accept abortion as a quick fix, not recognizing that the very decision to have an abortion is a fundamental symptom of many problems.
I do not delight in the polarization of this debate. I am well aware that those on both ends of the spectrum present their views in terms of love, care and compassion. I understand fully that no right thinking person takes a decision in favour of abortion lightly.
I will not be one of those to condemn those who have made or who may make decisions with which I disagree. Whether this battle is won or lost, I believe we must continue to speak for and promote the development of resources which can help people grow toward healthy, life giving relationships wherein responsibility for birth control and parenting is shared by both parents. We must encourage schools and employers to support women who are pregnant, not to expel or discriminate against them. We must continue to speak out against and deal with family violence so that children may be raised in safety. We must develop more efficient and fairer means of distributing support for child care. We must continue to support the development of preventive or crisis counselling in the areas of sexuality, pregnancy and family planning. Finally, governments including this government must encourage adoption as an alternative to abortion.
One of my hon. colleagues from the other side indicated a few minutes ago that 60 years ago women were not persons, and today they are. I am very distressed that many of those same persons who received their rights 60 years ago are now denying the rights of the foetus.
This debate is about abortion and how to deal with it in a pluralistic society. In the last few days we have heard many well-intentioned arguments on both sides of the question. I return to my first point: we cannot discuss abortion unless we first acknowledge clearly that life begins at conception and then develop a clear, rational approach to the balancing of rights, an approach which

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
recognizes the foetus as a fully human entity, doing so with compassion and a full understanding of the difficulties that each person faces. I do not support this bill. I cannot imagine supporting it, even in an amended form.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that this last year of my life has probably been one of the most exciting. I cannot believe, quite frankly, that I am here tonight in the Parliament of Canada. I feel it is the greatest honour of all to serve for your country. At the same time I want to say that the last 24 hours has been very tough for me. I am not a doctor. I am not a lawyer and I feel humbled in addressing this issue.
I have listened for the last year and a half to people on all sides of this issue. I have met them in my constituency office. I have met people in my office on the Hill. I noticed one thing that all parties have in common. All the people I met with were approachable and caring; they had integrity and they were passionate about their views.
That makes the dilemma even more difficult. I realize it is a dilemma that most politicians from all parties are facing, because many of us are finding that our personal beliefs are in conflict with the majority of our constituents, at least as many of our constituents perceive our responsibility to be.
I personally refer to this issue as the Thomas More dilemma. Few of us, and certainly not I, would pretend to have the learning or courage of Thomas More, but I believe after listening and watching people in this Chamber for the last year that they also have and stress the value of morality, honour and integrity.
Today, when we are struggling with an issue like this, that kind of integrity, that kind of trust, is so important. In fact, I think that trust is the central issue in this debate. It is the trust that our constituents have with each one of us. I take that thought with me as I approach this issue of abortion because we have a choice between acting as a representative of our constituents and voting as we perceive the majority would wish us to vote. In my constituency a majority would wish me to vote in favour of this bill or abortion in whatever limited form it would be allowed.
The other option is that we can act as a delegate of the voters and vote for what we consider to be right. If I were to take the first course, then I would apparently gain the trust of the majority and certainly lose the trust of a significant minority who are against abortion, and I use the word apparently advisedly because I do not think anyone would ever trust me if I really gave in and gave up on deeply held convictions, especially one like this.
I want to speak personally for a moment about my convictions because I believe that human life begins at the moment of conception. This is not a religious conviction; all the medical evidence supports this belief. However I am not a member of the pro-life movement. I question their emotive use of the term.
Who, after all, is in favour of death? My belief is a quiet personal belief. It is important that we have strongly worded legislation to protect the unborn. At the same time we must have the political will to put in infrastructure to support women facing the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy. We must discuss this issue with genuine empathy for the plight of pregnant women. They are often lonely, afraid, deserted, poor and particularly stigmatized, so we must be innovative in our solutions to make it easier for women to continue with their pregnancies.
In listening to this debate for the last few days, I do acknowledge the hon. member from British Columbia when she said it was mostly men who were speaking on this issue. I have to refer to two of my colleagues who are women who spoke on this issue last Thursday, my colleague from Western Arctic made the following statement:
My position is one for life. I choose life. I do not belong to the pro-life movement, but I belong to a people who believe that life is sacred and always have under the harshest of circumstances.
I also believe in people who are willing to take the unwanted; I believe in the people who adopt. I am an adopted child. I celebrate my mother and I am the oldest of 15 children. I celebrate my mother because she brought 15 of us into this world, under the harshest of circumstances, with great poverty and difficulty.
She went on to say:
I cannot take the chance of having this legislation pass. I will vote against it. But I can tell you once more, that for my people, children are important, people are important, and life is the most valuable gift you are given.
November 27, 1989

My colleague, the member from Northumberland made a similar statement. She said:
Because I believe in and try to live in the spiritual, sacred, mystery side of my, in my intellectual weakness I submit to the view that it is probable that the sacredness of life begins at conception. Therefore, I cannot accept abortion at any stage of life from conception onward.
She went on to talk about companion legislation.
What am I going to do? For me the choice is clear. I shall vote against this bill. I may have to answer to the voters as long as I am in politics, but I have to answer to my own conscience for the rest of my life. I let my belief in this issue be known through the last year and a half. For me, governance is to look after the disadvantaged and for me there is nothing more disadvantaged than an unborn child and, in my opinion, this bill does not pass the test.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, no subject is more troubling for any reflective person than abortion. No other issue since I arrived here in 1979 has evoked more letters, phone calls and personal visits from concerned constituents and non-constituents on both sides of the issue. It cuts right to the heart of what human beings, religions of all kinds, pluralism, the proper scope of our criminal law and representative democracy are all about.
In the case of members of the present governing party and the Official Opposition, at least our whips will not tell us how our respective party hierarchies want us to vote. If it is true, as indicated, that the Prime Minister intends to force his cabinet colleagues to vote en bloc for Bill C-43,1 trust that the right hon. gentleman will allow them to vote their consciences on various amendments which will be proposed both in committee and at the report and third reading stages of the bill.
Let me say now what I find to be positive and what I find to be unacceptable about Bill C-43. First, the more positive. The bill says that Parliament has sufficient respect for unborn children from conception in that it orders that no such child can be aborted unless a medical doctor "is of the opinion that the abortion were not induced, the health or life of the female person would be likely to be threatened".
Second, the bill requires that henceforth for legal abortions in Canada only medical doctors can perform
Government Orders
them. One of the consequences of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Morgentaler is that in terms of federal legislative sanctions, at least, a person performing an abortion need not currently even be a trained medical doctor.
Third, I personally share the presumed view of the drafters of this bill, that the person charged with inducing an illegal abortion should be a doctor, not the woman. I wonder, though, how doctors across Canada can reconcile performing abortions because, a husband or a boyfriend demands that one be performed, with the Hippocratic Oath taken I gather, by every practising physician across Canada. One part of that oath says, and I quote: "I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion".
Fourth, the doctor's opinion that a continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the health of the pregnant person must accord to "generally accepted standards of the medical profession", not his or her own notions about the matter.
Fifth, I believe as a lawyer that this bill is constitutionally unassailable under the Charter of Rights.
What is illegitimate about the bill? First, it can be said to be pro-life in form; it is clearly strongly pro-choice in substance. Second, and closely related, in terms of the world's realities, it appears to me to pay only lip service to the all important issue of balancing the interests, assuming that they can conflict, of perspective mothers and this Parliament's interest in protecting unborn children. I say this as someone who has worked professionally with the provisions of the Criminal Code for many years both as Crown counsel and defence counsel, and who worries that the member for York Centre has probably characterized very well what will result, in practice, across Canada. The member reportedly said at a press conference, after the bill was introduced, and I quote:
-what has been attempted here is really nothing more than to provide a fraudulent cover for abortion. What is being said is, "Ladies play our game, go to the right doctors, give the doctors the right story, and you'll have nothing to worry about".
Mr. Kaplan went on:
That, to my mind, is not the honourable kind of solution that
should be brought forward considering all the various interests and
all the various rights that are at stake here.

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
In other words, there are, unfortunately, probably enough medical doctors practising across Canada today who take a less than literal interpretation of their Hippocratic Oath and who favour abortion on demand, that abortions on demand, legalized by the Morgentaler case, will in most communities continue unabated.
Will a single one of the 60,000 unborn girls or boys who now perish each year in the present legal vacuum, survive if this bill becomes law in its present form? Canadians generally, and my constituents in particular, as I understand their views, want a major reduction in the number of abortions being performed across Canada. That at least was the major conclusion I drew from approximately 5,000 questionnaires received from constituents in the spring of 1988. Fully 2,865 or 60 per cent of my constituents, indicated that they wanted "drastically reduced" the number of abortions. Approximately 2,000 or 40 per cent, indicated in effect that they wanted abortion "made more fully accessible".
May I pay particular tribute to the speech made in this House by the member for Ottawa South which voiced many of my own concerns and views. For example, his quote from Mario Cuomo about the need for society to assume that the right to life does not end at the moment of birth. Proper housing, education and nutrition for all children must be the priority of all of us who profess to be pro-life. Also, that of the member for Welland who spoke earlier tonight.
My 10 minutes is going fast. Let me urge all members of this House who are on the pro-life side of the spectrum not to vote against this bill on second reading. If enough of us private MPs do so in this Chamber, the government's bill, flawed as it is from a pro-life point of view, will die and the status quo, that is, abortion on demand will continue across Canada in all likelihood until the next election and possibly beyond.
The only Canadians who will benefit from that possibility would be the 25 per cent to 35 per cent in all 10 provinces who, opinion polls suggest, favour abortion on demand at all stages of all pregnancies.
In closing, I would urge all colleagues to consider carefully and to vote to send C-43 into a legislative committee where, hopefully, the government majority there will recognize the bill, as is, is more pro-choice than a substantive majority of both Canadians and MP's favour. If enough carefully drawn amendments are
accepted, C-43 could be moved significantly closer to the government stated objective of balance in the interests of society, the protection of unborn children and the interests of some mothers in not continuing a pregnancy in defined situations.
Finally, if such amendments are not accepted, and I put this to my friends on all sides of the House who are pro-life, the majority of us in this House who believe that human life is sacred could then vote against the bill on third reading.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak strongly against Bill C-43, an act to recriminalize abortion. I was reluctant to even participate in this debate because I am so angry that it is occurring at all. I, along with my New Democrat colleagues, opposed this bill on its introduction because abortion is a private matter, not for doctors or judges to decide, but for the woman who must live with the outcome of the decision for the rest of her life.
This is not a matter for criminal law. This is not a matter for the 255 male members or 40 female members of this House to decide. It is a matter for the woman involved.
This whole debate and the bill which is at the centre of it is based on a false assumption. That assumption is that controls are necessary, that women are unable or incapable of making this painful decision without some sort of state control. I utterly reject this assumption. Women have always, through time, and in different cultures, made these painful life and death decisions.
There is another assumption implicit in this debate and it is that this debate will somehow bring some resolution to this dilemma which confronts us. This, too, is a false assumption. I doubt that there is a legislative resolution to this question. In a pluralistic society, how can we legislate the solution to abortion?
The question of abortion is a moral question. We all bring our own life's experience, differing religious beliefs and philosophies when considering such a question. We as legislators, acting in a pluralistic society, know there is no legislative resolution to this issue. No law will end abortion. In this instance, I mean political in the crassest sense. It is, as my colleague for Victoria pointed out in last week's debate, a bill designed not to respect women or their decisions, nor in that false polarity, fuelled by
November 27, 1989

this debate, is it a bill to protect life. It is, to be blunt, a bill to protect politicians.
Some speakers in this debate have characterized this bill as a compromise. At the beginning of this debate I rejected that idea. But now I have come to agree. It is a compromise. But once again I mean that in the crassest sense. It is meant for many in this House to compromise their principles. So in this bill we do have a political compromise flowing from political expediency.
For the record I should state that that last sentence was spoken with contempt. I will now turn from speaking about the debate to the broader discussion of the issue.
The issue of abortion challenges us at the very core of our being. Abortion is a statement of failure. At the individual level, this could mean failure of partners accepting responsibility in expressing their sexuality, or failure in contraception, or failure in a relationship.
At the societal level, abortion is also a statement of failure. It is our society, despite rivers of rhetoric, saying that we do not welcome children, we do not treasure children. In the society we live in today, that message is loud and clear. It is stated in child poverty, which our leader so eloquently addressed in his last statement before this House. It is stated in the lack of resources given to child care. It is stated in overcrowded classrooms and the lack of housing where children are welcomed. There are few enough housing units where children are accepted, even fewer where space for children and those who care for them are included in the planning. These are the reasons I say abortion is a statement of failure. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, women have always recognized this.
For women, this issue is not abstract-it is very real. It is a women's issue. It is women's bodies and women's lives being controlled by this legislation, not men's. Women are the ones who ultimately decide this life and death issue. They have done so since time began and in all cultures. They have done so alone, in fear and secretly, often protecting the men in their lives from the enormity of their decision because they were aware that men have little ability to handle life and death decisions unless these decisions are depersonalized such as during war. They will do so no matter what this House does. I suspect that much of the anger surrounding this issue is based in recognition of this fact because ultimately this
Government Orders
issue is about power. Women exercising their power of choice challenges that unstated premise on which our society is based, that men know best, that they are morally superior. If you doubt that assertion, just consider the continuing debate surrounding the ordination of women. I can understand that this challenge is very threatening, especially to those who are reluctant to share power with women. If women cannot be controlled, what will become of us?
Women are not morally deficient. I respect women's rights to choose. As a woman I feel betrayed by this bill. I feel betrayed by some of the formerly pro-choice women of this House. This issue is too important to flip-flop on. I implore all of the formerly pro-choice members of this House to reject political expediency and instead stand in pro-choice solidarity against this bill. Canada has signed the United Nation's Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Paragraph 4 of the Convention calls for signatories such as Canada, to:
Repeal all national penal provisions which constitute
discrimination against women.
This bill before us discriminates against women. It does not control men's sexuality and reproduction; it controls women's sexuality and reproduction. It does not limit men's right to choose whether or not to have children; it limits women's right to choose whether or not to bear a child.
As critic for the New Democratic Party on international development, I am appalled that Canada says one thing abroad and practises another at home. I have become very angiy at the arguments used and abused in this House to justify this bill. Some members whom one once would have called pro-choice are saying now that they will support this bill because it proposes a national standard for abortion, a national standard for access. This is utterly outrageous. This bill does not prevent the harassment of women outside clinics. It does not create community health centres where abortions can be performed. It does not prevent restrictive laws such as the one we are currently seeing in Nova Scotia, nor will it lead to abortion services being made available in Prince Edward Island. The only national standard it sets is one of fear of being charged under the Criminal Code. This bill does not meet international standards and it does not promote a national standard. All it does is hurt women. I would have hoped that some formerly pro-choice cabi-

Government Orders
net ministers would have at least had the integrity to admit that.
In conclusion, I want to say that this is the issue that made me a New Democrat. It is only my party which has had the courage to tackle this issue and determine a party policy. This policy was achieved not without pain. Only the New Democrats gave the issue the priority to work through that pain and come to a position on the issue. Our detractors use this as evidence that we do not individually struggle with this issue, that we blindly and unthinkingly follow party policy. Our party speakers during this debate have made it clear that this is patent nonsense. Each one of us have brought our own life's experience, our religious beliefs and philosophies and come to a common conclusion. We, as New Democrats, respect women. We believe that abortion is a private matter for a woman and her conscience. We are confident that each woman is capable of making the right choice.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak on Bill C-43, which deals with a matter that has caused a great deal of controversy and debate from coast to coast in this nation.
When we choose to enter public life, all politicians know that at times they will be faced with tough decisions. The subject of abortion is, without a doubt, one of these occasions. For example, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources even considered quitting politics rather than support a liberal new abortion bill. This vividly illustrates the agonizing nature of reaching a decision on what is very clearly a moral, ethical and personal matter.
I have never been one to shy away from making my views public on difficult policy matters, and the same is true for the abortion issue. I have made my personal position crystal clear ever since I was elected to the House of Commons 17 years ago. I am against abortion on demand. However, I feel the life of the mother is all important and should be given top priority.
I also feel that an abortion should be made available in cases of rape and incest. When I say rape, I mean especially the rape of a minor. Not allowing abortions in these instances is tantamount to condoning these atrocious acts.
At present, we have no abortion legislation in place. This has put the federal government in a no-win situation. An abortion can now be performed at the end of the ninth month, and this is frightening. I believe at least 70 per cent of the people in Canada agree that an abortion should be available under certain circumstances. In all probability, under the circumstances I mentioned earlier.
It is my feeling that the legislation presently before this House presents a reasonable solution to the complex matter of abortion. While I am somewhat concerned that the legislation involves an amendment to the Criminal Code, I realize this is the only way the federal government can ensure a national approach to the issue of access to abortion. Under the proposed legislation, any woman seeking an abortion will have to consult a medical practitioner. If the medical practitioner feels the pregnancy would threaten the life or health of the woman, then an abortion can be performed.
Pro-life supporters have stated that the legislation is not strong enough. However, they should note that with the new legislation, a woman or her doctor can receive a maximum penalty of up to two years in jail if they breach the provisions of the law.
At this point, I would like to stress that the legislation does not provide for abortion on demand. The medical practitioner is required to determine, in accordance with generally accepted standards of the medical profession, whether there are health reasons to justify an abortion. According to these standards, abortions are rarely conducted after the foetus becomes viable, unless there are compelling foetal or maternal complications.
A sad reality is that at present a woman may feel that no alternative to an abortion exists due to her economic or social situation. It is imperative that we do whatever we can to help these individuals avoid the problem in the first place and to provide all the possible alternatives to abortion in cases where unplanned pregnancies have occurred. For this reason, I was heartened by the

November 27, 1989

measures which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has planned to put in place to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. These include increased research into family planning, including contraception, continued funding of planned parenthood and measures to encourage more pregnant women to consider adoption in place of abortion.
It is my sincere hope that these measures will enable us to deal with the startling facts of teenage abortion which have recently come to my attention. In a recent issue of one of the Ottawa newspapers, for example, it stated that of the 800 girls aged 15 to 19 who became pregnant in Ottawa-Carleton in 1987, 62 per cent had abortions. Across Ontario, in the same year, 46.9 per cent of the estimated 12,800 pregnant girls in that age group had abortions. Clearly, this is an unacceptable situation.
In preparing the legislation before us, the justice minister had to keep in mind the issue of the Charter of Rights. If the government presented legislation that was too restrictive, then the Supreme Court could strike it down as it did in the Morgentaler decision. In this decision, Chief Justice Dickson wrote:
Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to
term is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus an
infringement of the security of the person.
I am confident that Bill C-43 has responded to these concerns.
As the justice minister stated in this House, we are not asking the people of Canada to change their opinion on what they think is right. Each and every Canadian is entitled to his or her own value judgment on this very moral issue. We are merely asking Canadians to respect the views of others and to respect this new law.
Canadians will never be unanimous about what abortion laws should be passed, but it is clear that some federal legislation must be passed. If the bill is defeated, we will be right back to square one with abortions available right up to the ninth month. Clearly, this is unacceptable to the majority of Canadians.
This is a tough decision, but governments are elected to make tough decisions. The federal government has never backed away from its responsibilities and has acted to bring in a bill that strikes a moderate and balanced approach to the veiy sensitive abortion issue. For this
Government Orders
reason, Bill C-43 should receive the support of this House.
I am hoping, and I think a great many other members share that hope that certain amendments may be tabled before committee and at report stage. It would then be more acceptable to some of those who have misgivings about it in its present state.
I might point out that down through the years, since I have been a member of Parliament, I have had many delegations coming to my office, primarily in Ottawa but also in my constituency office, and I will concede that the great majority of those were groups of pro-life people who were worried about the previous legislation even before it was struck down.
It is rather unusual that, in the last number of months, I had requests from members of the pro-choice group which is the first time I had ever had that in all my years here. I know we have a very difficult situation before us and I can assure you that a great many of us are worried considerably about it. As I stated, I have made my position clear not just in the last few months but down through the years since I have had the privilege of being a member of Parliament.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to contribute to the deliberations of the House of Commons this evening on this very emotional topic. I have listened to many of the speeches during this debate and have read those that I did not hear.
Before I begin my remarks, it is important to remember that we are speaking tonight on second reading debate. If the bill passes second reading, otherwise known as approval in principle, it will go to committee for discussion and attempts at amendment. I cannot support it. I will now explain why.
On November 7 this year, the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby urged us to "speak to our mothers; speak to our sisters; speak to our daughters; speak to our wives". I have done so. I have gone further. I have spoken to my constituents. I have spoken to Canadians all across the country. My mother, my wife, my daughter, the majority of women on my riding executive, the overwhelming majority of people, both female and male with whom I have spoken and the vast majority of those who have written to me, have said no to abortion on demand. The question is not whether we should have

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
restrictions but, rather, the nature of the restrictions that we should have.
Of course, there are some of the opposite view. In today's mail I received a letter from a constituent. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, I quote:
No man has the right to tell me to carry what amounts to little more
than a parasite in my body. A foetus lives off the woman cartying it.
This so-called human life can cause diabetes, high blood pressure, let
alone discomfort, nausea and pain.
I cannot and will not subscribe to this view of the unborn being akin to a tapeworm. If this person's own mother thought as she does, perhaps she would not be alive today to write to me.
I am opposed to this bill. I believe it should be defeated tomorrow on the vote for second reading and the issue sent back for further consideration by this government. Why? This bill is the spawn of the entirely unsavoury union of hypocrisy and cowardice. With origins such as this, it must be condemned to the dustbin. Let us examine the bill.
It says, "Every person who induces an abortion". What does that mean? What is so objectionable? After all, there is no law prohibiting appendectomies or tonsillectomies. Why a law to prevent abortion? Is it not just a medical procedure like any other? Well, logic would suggest that we look to the bill for definition of what we are talking about. There is no definition. This is cowardice, this failure to deal squarely with the fundamental issue of abortion. If there is no definition, how can we possibly know what the bill is pretending to outlaw? In the absence of a definition, look to the dictionary. The shorter Oxford English Dictionary, based on historical principles, third edition, being the abridged version of the massive Oxford English Dictionary, says about abortion that it is "the procuring of premature delivery so as to destroy offspring". Offspring is defined by the dictionary as "a person's child or children". That is what abortion is. The destruction of human life, nothing less.
This bill pretends to ban the procuring of premature delivery for the purpose of destroying one's child. Does it really do so? Here begins the hypocrisy. The destruction of a human being is permitted if the medical practitioner, and that is any medical practitioner, and only one, such
as Dr. Morgentaler, is of the opinion that: "The health or life of the female person would be likely to be threatened'*. "Likely to be threatened". Not "will be threatened". Just a mere possibility. It is totally subjective and completely open-ended.
It is interesting to note that notwithstanding the fact that the word "abortion" is not defined in the legislation, the word "health" is defined. Surely, this is further hypocrisy. This wide-open definition with virtually no restrictions is really nothing more than abortion on demand under the guise of what some misguided individuals believe is an implicit recognition of the humanity of the foetus.
The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously in the Daigle case has told us and all Canadians that the foetus has absolutely no rights in Canadian law whatsoever. You only get rights once you are bom alive. But it went further. It said that if Canadians wish the foetus to have rights, then these rights must be explicitly, not implicitly, spelled out in legislation by the House of Commons.
I was speaking of hypocrisy. I will mention two situations only, due to time constraints, and let you be the judge as to whether there is hypocrisy or not.
First, on May 2, 1980, a member of this House of Commons proposed a private member's bill concerning an act to amend the Criminal Code, Bill C-293. It proposed that the procuring of a miscarriage, as abortion was then known, would be permissible only if the continuation of the pregnancy would be likely to actually, physically or mentally, endanger the life of the pregnant woman. This same member now supports Bill C-43, the abortion-on-demand bill. Who is this member? It is the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe.
Second, the Prime Minister has said he personally opposes abortion, but he will not say why. I know why. It is because he knows that abortion is the destruction of human life. If this is not why, then I challenge him to refute me tomorrow in his speech and tell us all why he personally opposes abortion.
He has said this about life:
November 27, 1989

II is wrong to take life. I can think of no circumstances except selfdefence to justify it-I will resist with all my strength, all of my life, any
action that would diminish that reality and would lessen value.
Those are noble words, applicable in his mind to convicted murderers but apparently not to unborn human beings. This is a man who promised a free vote and yet has forced his ministers to choose between loyalty and conscience only to have them demonstrate apparently that loyalty overrides conscience. This is a man who is so weak of will on this issue, indistinguishable in principle from the issue of life he so vigorously defended in the capital punishment debate, that he follows rather than leads. Not only does he not have the courage of his convictions, but he insists that his ministers abandon theirs.
This bill, being a concoction of one part hypocrisy and one part cowardice, is a drink designed to be distasteful to all. It cannot in my view be amended without direct explicit recognition of the humanity of the unborn child, something which the rules of this House will not in my opinion permit by way of amendment.
It must be rejected with the admonition to the government to return with legislation which does three things: explicitly establishes the humanity of the unborn human being, protects the unborn human being from conception and is coupled with companion legislation which, as my colleague the hon. member for Northumberland has said, supports pregnant women and their children and deals with the underlying causes of abortion in this country.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that it is very difficult to add anything of real substance to this debate on the second reading of Bill C-43 respecting abortion in Canada.
I had the honour to precede you very briefly in the chair, Mr. Speaker, at your request. I was very grateful that I had that opportunity because it enabled me to listen to speeches from members on all sides of the House. In the short span of time that I sat in the chair, I heard a defence of what might be called the pro-life stand and a staunch defence of what might be called the pro-choice stand.
While I have my own views on abortion and the need for a law with respect to abortion, I want to say very clearly and add to the record that I think all of us have to respect those who support either view. There is no right inherent in any of us to condemn those who approach the abortion issue from a pro-life standpoint or from a pro-choice standpoint. It is only with an understanding of all the views that pertain to the issue of abortion in
Government Orders
Canada that we can come to any national reconciliation on the issue.
In that respect, I want to point out that I understand that there is no compromising on the issue of abortion. I understand that many regard it as the killing of an unborn child, while others regard the act of abortion as saving and protecting the woman whose rights must be honoured. It is difficult to compromise on those two positions.
What we have to do is achieve some kind of balance of rights because we are, after all, legislators. We are here to legislate in the interests of all the people of Canada. To the extent that we can effectively legislate and create some reconciliation among all Canadians on the issue, that is our challenge. Our challenge is not, in my opinion, to stand here and provide support for our own particular view, or to represent any particular point of view, but rather to achieve some kind of resolution of this problem.
In that connection, let me say very quickly that I believe there has to be a law on abortion. I think that that is in the interest of all Canadians. I respect the rights of women. I understand the difficulties faced by pregnant women who want their pregnancy terminated. But I think at this point in our history it is in the interest of all Canadians to have a law on abortion.
There may come a time in the future when we will not need a law on abortion, when we have the social instruments that will preclude unwanted pregnancies or take care of unwanted pregnancies when they do occur so that we can avoid this issue of abortion. But in the meantime we have to recognize the void that exists in the law of Canada. If we can possibly remedy and fill that void, then that is or obligation. That is why I want to spend my time reviewing the law.
We had for many years in Canada complete prohibition against abortion. It was contrary to the Criminal Code. Then we allowed, by virtue of Criminal Code provisions, abortions to be performed under certain circumstances.
We cannot neglect and avoid the fact that this House of Commons, this Parliament of Canada, with the consent and concurrence of the provinces, enacted a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We gave to the courts of Canada and to the Supreme Court of Canada the right to interpret that Charter, and the Supreme Court did so. It exercised the mandate to determine what the rights were under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It said that the existing abortion law, the law restricting abortion, providing for hospital committees to approve abortions, was not valid.

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
We have to recognize that that was the right of the Supreme Court of Canada to make that decision. We have to answer the question, what are we going to do about it to give it the exercise of that right in the Charter.
I have heard members say that we cannot approve the law as enacted by Bill C-43, that it does not go far enough, that it does not protect the foetus, that it does not recognize that life begins at conception, or any of the positions taken by people who espouse a pro-life point of view. But you have to recognize what the Parliament of Canada is permitted to do under the law. Very few of those members who take that position referred to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and recognize that we must amend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if we are to provide rights to the unborn. It is a constitutional issue.
The member from Scarborough talked about a law that defined the rights of a foetus. We cannot enact that law in Parliament. It has to be by way of amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We can only do what the law permits the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada to do, that is to enact a law that does not violate the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. If I had the opportunity to enact a law, I would do so.
I presented Bill C-203 to the House of Commons in the first session of the thirty-fourth Parliament. It indicates, I believe, the strongest law that can be enacted with respect to abortion, but I do not think that the government and many lawyers will accept the fact that that law would pass the test of the Supreme Court of Canada.
My point is simply this. In Bill C-43 now before the House of Commons we have been presented with a law that restricts abortion in Canada. It may not restrict abortion to the extent that many members want, but I cannot accept that as a reason to vote against the bill. I can understand that those who espouse a pro-choice position will vote against that bill. They believe that a woman should have a right to an abortion if that is her decision with respect to a particular pregnancy. I understand that they would vote against the bill, but I do not understand a person who is interested in protecting life voting against Bill C-43 at second reading. I do not understand that position. If this bill is defeated in this House of Commons, there will be in Canada no law on abortion and no real possibility of enacting a law. Is that the position that members want?


Ms. Black:: Yes!


Howard Edward Crosby: I have said very clearly that I believe that Canadians want and require a law on abortion. It is not ah overwhelming majority but it is the consensus of opinion in Canada.
Why do I think that? Because I do not think most Canadians desire and want what is happening in Halifax, Nova Scotia at the Morgentaler clinic. I do not think that Canadians want abortion reduced to the level of walking in off the street and having it over and done with and forget about the consequences.
I believe that Canadians want consideration. They want the sanctity of life protected by a law. Whether or not this should mean that women will be denied abortions in reasonable circumstances is another matter. I believe that at this stage in our history the law while restrictive must conform to the Supreme Court of Canada decision. We really do not have that choice without a constitutional amendment.
My purpose is simply to remind members of the state of the law, to recognize what the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada, can do and cannot do with respect to abortion.
I believe Bill C-43 represents a measure that the Parliament of Canada can take, not a measure that will satisfy those who believe that life begins at conception and under no or very, very extremely limited circumstances can a pregnancy be terminated. I recognize their position, but it is not one that we can implement in this House of Commons today.
The expression comes to mind like half a loaf is better than none at all. I know it is considered to be unsatisfactory. I think the fact that the bill is opposed by both pro-life advocates and pro-choice advocates indicates that it does effect some kind of balancing of rights. I
November 27, 1989

think all we can do at this stage of our history is balance rights.
We can and we will have the opportunity to add amendments to the bill. I think that abortion should be performed in an accredited hospital. I do not think it should be left to the parties to decide where an abortion can be performed.
As far as the bill having no real effect, that is not true. It would be very unwise for a medical practitioner in Canada if this bill is enacted to perform an abortion without having objective criteria to adjudicate whether or not health was affected. I think a medical practitioner would be very unwise to not have a second opinion on an abortion. I say that to the people who advocate that pro-choice view. That is something that they should consider. It is possible for a woman to be prosecuted under this provision. I do not think that we should hide behind the fact that a woman may not be prosecuted because under the existing law pregnant women were specifically mentioned and they are not under this bill.
I think we should look at this provision realistically. It does restrict abortion. Do not make any mistake about that. There is not a doctor in Canada who will rush in and perform an abortion just on his own say so that the health of the mother is in jeopardy. They will get second opinions. They will go through processes. It is going to take time and effort to get an abortion. Those people who regard the provisions as meaningless are mistaken in my opinion.
I am not supporting in any way, shape or form the pro-choice group. I want to point that out. The bill does restrict abortion. It restricts it in a way that is valid under the Supreme Court of Canada decision. It is all the Parliament of Canada can do at this stage in history. I would urge members to support the bill and propose amendments at the committee stage.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate this evening on the crucial matter of abortion facing not only this Parliament but, indeed, this country. It is, of course, an extremely delicate and complex subject matter which has aroused and will continue to arouse the passions of Canadians from coast to coast and lead them to explore this most fundamental dilemma.
Government Orders
In any discussion on abortion several parameters need to be drawn. First, most Canadians would acknowledge that this issue is not an easy one, for such fundamental questions of life and death strike at the very foundation of our society.
Second, the issue is a multi-faceted one which involves the social, moral, philosophical and religious forces of the day, as well as pits the rights and the choice of individual women against the collective rights of a society and, indeed, the rights of the unborn.
Thus, because the equation is a multi-dimensional one, the challenge becomes one of distinguishing the order of importance among the competing variables. Which is the most important variable? Which is of paramount priority?
Third, there are few issues like abortion which create the polarized extremes which seem to colour this particular debate. Consequently, the traditional Canadian way of compromise or building bridges between these two polarized shores is made extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible.
Under these three parameters any discussion will prove difficult and challenging to say the least. But, at the same time, it requires an extra investment on our part as a Parliament and as a society to ensure that our response to the issue rises in honesty and in clarity to the occasion.
I had the opportunity during the previous Parliament, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, back in July of 1988 to voice my thoughts on the question of abortion. Therefore, I will try not to repeat the arguments that I made some years ago, but yet, in the 10 minutes allotted to me this evening, I will take the opportunity to specifically focus on the government's proposed abortion legislation and thereby share with my constituents and my colleagues my views and feelings about the quality of the current legislative response to this emotional issue.
In the last Parliament when we were asked to choose among a multitude of motions I supported the one motion which was considered to be the pro-life option. I did so with conviction and deep belief and without any regrets or apologies. I did express, however, my deep reservations with three specific exceptions which I simply was not prepared to overlook, namely, where an abortion was performed in a case where the life of the mother was seriously endangered; where the pregnancy was the

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
result of rape; and where the pregnancy was the result of incest.
I was not able under those three conditions to carry through with simply the one view that the pro-life option was not prepared to take into consideration the sense of compassion and fairness. That was my position then and that remains my position today.
Consequently, I am not pleased with the proposed legislative response by this government today. I believe the bill is a poor, inadequate attempt at addressing and accounting for the many delicate issues that define the abortion discussion and the abortion debate. I, therefore, will not and cannot support this bill at second reading under any circumstances.
Let me illustrate briefly why I will vote against this legislative measure. First, for me, this proposed law as written is paramount to abortion on demand. The proposed law would make it very easy and very open-ended for the vast majority of women in Canada to obtain and secure an abortion. It is open-ended for any health reason which is loosely defined as including physical, mental and/or psychological factors. It is open-ended for any medical practitioner to approve the abortion. It is open-ended for ending a pregnancy at any stage of a woman's pregnancy. Really, is there a major difference between this bad law and no law at all?
Second, there is absolutely no reference, no effort in defining the rights of the foetus, the rights of the unborn. There is no attempt to define at what stage in the pregnancy that right, that life becomes paramount.
What about the past Supreme Court decision which requested and indeed challenged Parliament and parliamentarians to toil with this issue in order to provide guidance and leadership to both the country and our courts? Was this not to be a central premise in this current debate? Do we think that as a Parliament by avoiding the issue it will go away by itself? I do not believe it will. I believe with a deep sense of commitment that the majority of Canadians feel the same way. They would have in fact greater respect for us and this place as an institution if they believed and sensed that we really toiled over this emotional dilemma.
Third, with regard to women who do not wish to continue with their pregnancies, how does this proposed legislative package help to offer an alternative other than abortion? Where is the incentive, the resources and the support to encourage the birth alternative? Does an unwanted, unwarranted pregnancy have to mean an unwanted baby? Clearly, it should not and does not. Therefore if we wish, as a government, as a Parliament, to encourage women that they can and should give life to their unborn without having to jeopardize their own lives, then we must commit to effective counselling, for instance, to rebuild a woman's self-esteem and self confidence. We must provide nurturing and homes for women whose families may not be willing to accept an unwanted pregnancy.
We must provide medical assistance to meet those sudden physical and medical needs that may legitimately arise. We must provide career and educational programs to allow those women to resume their career or academic studies. We must provide necessary financial assistance for the expenses inherent in that pregnancy. This bill, however, does not even begin to discuss any kind or any type of support mechanism whatsoever. It is bankrupt of any commitment or compassion toward those women in severe difficulty.
Fourth, why is there no discussion, no reform of our adoption procedures as a possible answer and option to the unwanted child as an answer and a bridge of understanding to the growing number of childless Canadian couples who would dearly love to experience the special gift of parenthood? Why is the bill silent on these concerns when couples presently cannot find children to adopt in this country? If you are the chosen and fortunate few, then the process takes years, not months and clearly not weeks.
Alternatively, if these couples look for parenthood opportunities abroad, they will not only find a flourishing expensive business, but a very complicated bureaucratic process be it overseas or be it in this country.
Are we to have no answers at all? Unfortunately, Bill C-43 is silent on many issues. Yes, these questions are difficult. Yes, these questions are challenging. But, by the same token, it is far too easy for us as a Parliament and for the government to hide from them. That is precisely what this bill does. It runs away from making the necessary difficult decisions. Instead, it attempts to please superficially the two ends of the current debate.
November 27, 1989

For the pro-life element, this bill in the very first sentence of the very first paragraph makes abortion an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment.
Yet, in the very next breath, at the very end of that first line in the first paragraph for the pro-choice element the bill basically says: "Don't you worry, because if you get approval of any medical practitioner on any health reason, then abortion is legitimate and not an offence." I cannot, and I refuse, to support that type of cheap rationale.
Moreover, I cannot accept the challenge or the arguments of those who say: "Well, I don't like the bill at all, but I will support it at second reading. Let it get into committee and then we have a chance of amending the bill to our liking". That kind of rationale has two faults. First, it fails to recognize that Bill C-43 is bad legislation, that it is a fatally flawed document that does not merit that compromise. It is, for me, far better to make a strong unequivocal statement that Parliament and Canadians deserve better, that the government ought to bring back a proposed piece of legislation that is more worthy, more responsible to the challenges that confront us as a Parliament.
Second, the government has made it abundantly clear that it will not tolerate any loosening of the woman's free choice to choose. When this overriding point of view is complemented with the parliamentary committee process that does not permit amendments outside the purview of the bill, then what is the point of this charade at second reading? Is it to prove to the government that it was able to get the bill to second reading? Is it to delay the ultimate showdown to third reading? If it is, how better off are we going to be as a country if, after a lengthy process at committee stage, the amendments for either the pro-choice or pro-life elements are refused and the resulting shift in votes assures defeat at third reading? How would we have advanced the cause for a mature and rational law which would govern abortion and which would define the rights of the unborn?
In conclusion, both the issue and Canadians deserve better. Let us involve Canadians in a process where, in the end, the process will yield positive results, tangible results, and not a process that risks producing a
Government Orders
stalemate which would only further aggravate and frustrate the respective passions intensively felt on this issue.
I will vote against this bill at second reading. I truly hope a majority of my colleagues will be joining me.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, as I stand here I wonder why it is that I am standing here speaking on a bill that concerns women. When I watched in the last Parliament the last debate on the abortion issue, what I saw was a number of middle-aged men once again trying to tell women how they should arrange their lives. At that time, as I sat in my home in the comfort of my living-room watching the television, I wondered why it was that a male-dominated Parliament should be once again trying to control or continue to control a significant part of Canada's population.
When is the male population that I am a part of going to realize that women are capable of managing their own affairs without interference from us, the men of Canada? Life, death and all of the terms and times in between are of concern to me. But when I look at Bill C-43, it does nothing to accomplish what must be accomplished and what already has been accomplished by the Supreme Court of Canada in its recent decisions. It struck down the criminalization of abortion in Canada. In the period of time since then, women have once again proven to all in the world, and particularly all in Canada, that they are very capable of arranging and controlling their lives. There has not been a massive increase in abortions within Canada. There has not been what so many of those against choice for women have said will happen. I repeat that women have proven once again that they are very capable of managing their own lives.
In trying to grapple with the very issue that is before us and has been brought once again before Parliament, even though it was already dealt with through Bill C-43, I had to look for help from those who would be affected by the legislation. One of the people I looked to was one of my constituents who wrote to me. I would like to read to you today what she said to me: "I am one of your pro-choice constituents and I am also definitely one of your pro-life constituents. No dichotomy exists in being pro-life and pro-choice. I have two children and support any woman's right to bear children. However, I also support any woman's right not to bear children. Women will always have the final say on abortion. No legislature or Supreme Court justice can change that, all they can

Government Orders
do is make it illegal or difficult to obtain. All that politicians or members of the judiciary can do is force women, mainly poor women, to suffer the indignities of hurdling barriers designed solely to harass them. Access to reproductive health care for a woman should not depend on geography or a bank account."
If we analyze what this constituent has been telling me and I pass on to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the people of Canada that it appears that what is in fact going to happen through Bill C-43, and through any legislation that criminalizes the termination of an unwanted pregnancy, will force more and more people, more and more women, poor women, into the back streets for their abortions, with the problems that we have seen so often in those areas.
I deeply respect and value all life on our fragile planet, but denying women access to safe therapeutic abortions will not in any way enhance our communities' respect for human life. Desperate women will seek illegal abortions at the hands of back street abortionists, or use methods themselves which endanger their own lives.
Under Italy's harsh anti-abortion laws, repealed in 1978, estimates placed the annual number of illegal abortions as high as 800,000 per year with 2,000 women dying annually of complications.
Limiting access to abortion will not reduce the number of abortions in Canada, but will cause a significant increase in maternal mortality and injury. This surely constitutes disregard and not respect for human life.
I must also point out that we on this side of the House have never advocated abortion as an alternative to contraception. The decision to have an abortion is an agonizing one for any woman, yet it is ultimately her own choice determined by the dictates of her own conscience and in consultation with her physician. It cannot be a choice determined by the legislators.
I certainly acknowledge the complexities and sensitivity of this issue. I also recognize the importance of reducing the number of abortions in Canada. This can be accomplished by improving the availability of contraceptive information and materials, ensuring better sex
education programs, and providing increased funding for birth control research and family planning programs. This position was taken as long ago as 1971 by the Canadian Medical Association and supported by many other well respected organizations and individuals in Canada, including the United Church of Canada.
In supporting childbirth by choice, I am supporting the principle of freedom of choice in planning one's family. This principle was recognized by the International Conference on Population and Development and sponsored by the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. I fully support this principle that they have enunciated, and believe that it is a responsibility of government to provide alternatives to abortion, such as counselling, prenatal care, child care and adoption assistance. Funding these types of services, rather than restricting access to abortion, will do more to help decrease the number of abortions than will a return to criminalization.
I cannot support this bill because of that.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it is both my pleasure and duty to participate in this most important debate on abortion, and I welcome the opportunity to do so tonight. It is a subject which has provoked incredibly intense feelings on both sides, and has tortured the heart and soul of millions of people across this country. The argument has been one in which emotion has often transcended reason.
That having been said, it is incumbent upon us as members of Parliament to deal with this most sensitive of issues. We must fulfill our responsibilities as legislators. We must provide leadership and direction, and we must formulate a law which is moral and just.
During the year which has passed since I was elected to represent the riding of Egmont, I have received hundreds of letters and visits from constituents on this issue of abortion. It has been a great comfort to me that the vast majority of those who took the time and trouble to write and speak to me share my views on this matter.
I consider the question of abortion to be one of public as well as private morality. It is a question which involves the sanctity of human life and the civil rights of all
November 27, 1989

human beings. It is a question the answer to which provides a measure of our country as a civilized country.
In introducing Bill C-43, the government took the simplest course available to it, other than doing nothing. It declared that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, but with penalties for abuses of the law. Symbolically, it makes abortion illegal. Effectively, it provides abortion on demand. There is no protection for the unborn child.
Who is responsible for the protection of life in our society? Upon whom does the onus lie to protect all members of that society? Who, if not the state? I consider this bill an abdication of that responsibility. The youngest, the most innocent, the most defenceless members of our society have been abandoned. Our laws are a reflection of our morality. How sad it is today that we are being asked to support legislation which legitimizes the killing of the unborn. A law which permits the killing of human beings is uncivilized and thus unacceptable.
The Minister of Health and Welfare in his remarks to the House said: "We have been elected by Canadians to choose the course which best balances the rights of everyone concerned."
I contend that every one concerned has not been considered in this bill. One group has been omitted, left unprotected. The unborn have been left to the mercy of their mothers and their doctors. They have been given the authority to pronounce the death sentence on unborn children. It is an appalling situation.
My colleague from Leeds-Grenville, in one of the coherent and reasoned speeches of this debate, referred to that kind of situation as an extension of our throwaway society. When something is inconvenient, get rid of it. He asked, is it moral for the strong to destroy the weak? Remember that two people go into a Morgentaler clinic but only one comes out.
Our society generally embraces and upholds the sacredness of life. We resist the threat to life posed by the world's nuclear capabilities. We resist the threat to life generated by racial strife and by poverty. We in this country have resisted capital punishment. I believe that we have developed a consistent life ethic in our nation.
Government Orders
We pride ourselves in that. We consider ourselves the most civilized of societies.
Any society that calls itself civilized will have as its highest value the preservation of human life. It logically follows that legislators in such a society will have as then-highest priority laws which serve to protect that human life from its beginning to its end.
Medical technology has proven beyond any doubt that life begins at conception. Where else could it begin? Given this fact, I cannot accept that from the moment of conception until some optional time during the pregnancy, we are prepared to give a woman and her doctor the legal right to arbitrarily terminate that life. We cannot say that terminating a life is okay up to a point, but from that point onward it is a criminal offence. I contend that there is a serious flaw in the logic of this process, a flaw which is embedded in Bill C-43. It also makes one wonder what the future holds for the aged, and for the physically and mentally handicapped.
An American writer, Shelley Douglas, raised an interesting point. She states: "We have been so busy arguing over the right to choose that we have lost sight of whether the choice itself is a good choice for people to have to make". Much of the discussion now is not on whether abortion is right or wrong, but rather on the woman's right to choose. Abortion is now cast as a struggle of power, domination and control. Mercy and compassion are disappearing. The idea of abortion as a moral failure is lost on many people. For some, abortion has become a convenience, an acceptable form of birth control.
This debate has illustrated the dilemma in which we find ourselves. The rights of women are being pitted against the lives of the unborn. Let us look at some figures. Each year in Canada approximately 65,000 unborn children are killed. In the United States since the Wade vs. Roe decision in 1973, over 20 million Americans have lost their lives without ever having seen the light of day. No atrocity of history can match these figures.
The violence which is abortion is a violence against the unborn and a violence against women. The very heart of this position is an understanding that women, men and children, including the unborn are equal.
American psychologist, Sidney Callahan states: "It is my personal conviction that all human beings are of equal intrinsic moral worth; that no human being is

Government Orders
morally inferior to another". This is also a basic tenet of our liberal democratic society.
From this moral premise it follows that those persons in a society endowed with power, ability and goods have moral obligations to protect and aid those who are in need, those who are vulnerable, and those who are dependent upon others.
The unborn child, being a dependent human being, relies on others in the human community. These others have a moral obligation to its protection and nurture. The woman who alone has the power to sustain life in her womb has a corresponding obligation to protect and nurture it. Our most fundamental right is the right to life, the right not to be killed. This intrinsic right to life is more basic than the right to self-determination or liberty. In fact, it is the right upon which all others depend.
This, I believe to be the bottom line in this entire debate. Abortions which serve social ends or are used for contraception or family planning negate the basic principle of the moral equality of all human beings. Therefore, if the basic issue of this debate is reduced to the mother's right to choose versus the child's right to life, there is no question, absolutely no question, the unborn child's right to life must prevail.
While being unequivocally opposed to abortion, I realize that being just anti-abortion does not make one fully pro-life. A new abortion law which would give full protection to the unborn should not stand by itself. It must be supported by policies and programs which would address the social and economic conditions that contribute to abortion.
In a full pro-life program, a thorough presentation of abortion alternatives must be presented. Abortion procedures, adoption procedures and incentives must be reconstructed to better serve the infant, the mother and the receiving family. The stigma of putting a child up for adoption and of being adopted must be removed. Job security, financial support, counselling programs, nutritional programs, crisis pregnancy centers, and especially day care must be made available. Equal opportunity and pay for women must be enforced. Maternity and paternity leave to care for sick children must be implemented.
In conjunction with these programs, we must attack the problem of abortion at its roots before the pregnancy starts. We must educate, we must develop a healthy understanding of our sexuality, and of our sexual behaviour and its physical, emotional and spiritual consequences. Therefore, our various levels of government, our private sector, our various churches and church groups must come together to address the problem of unplanned pregnancies and unwanted children.
Abortion is an incredibly poor response to the beginning of a new life.
Pro-life then is a package deal. We cannot talk about protecting the unborn in an isolated fashion.
As American pro-life writer, Melissa Simmons Tulin states: "We must be willing to take our platitudes off our placards and put our ideology into action."
There are those among us who would argue that we must legalize abortion at least until all these previously mentioned programs are in place. To do that would be to ensure that the programs would never be developed, and we would never reach the kind of world for which we strive.
In fact, American experience would indicate that we should expect a regression in this area. In the U.S. there has been an attrition of programs to support human needs and this has been blamed directly on the availability of abortion.
Canada is the kinder and gentler nation of which President George Bush spoke after his election campaign. We must not compromise these qualities of which Mr. Bush was so envious. We must not allow life to become cheap and expendable. But we must build barriers to abortion and at the same time create alternatives that women's, men's and children's lives become more joyful and more meaningful.
In conclusion, I believe that life begins at conception. I believe that the foetus is a living human being. The right of a woman to have an abortion can only be made law by denying the unborn child the right to exist, by allowing the murder of another human being. Bill C-43 would legalize the taking of another human being's life. I cannot support this legislation, and I intend to vote against it at every stage.
November 27, 1989


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to stand in the House and exercise democracy. Yet, when I stand to to speak on this particular Bill C-43, I am disheartened.
Our country has been without a law for almost two years and the party in power brings in a law which does not satisfy any side. It does not say anything. It is all a bunch of hogwash.
The one question that is very important, the one question that we Canadians must ask ourselves is a fundamental one. When does life begin? We are sure that life begins at birth, so there is no question about that. Does life begin before birth? The one question that we can also ask is, will you kill a child five minutes before birth? Will you have an abortion two days before birth? Will you have an abortion a week before birth? I have to find one Canadian who will say, yes, you can have an abortion one week before birth. By that time the child is fully developed, ready to sustain itself. Therefore, we clearly come to an agreement that life begins somewhere before birth. And yet you go to the medical profession and ask: When does life begin? Some doctors say it begins at 12 weeks; others say at 8, others say at 16, others say at 18. They are not clear. They are presenting a grey area. Therefore, my belief is to take it right back to basics and believe that life starts at conception. I cannot and will not support a bill which does not realize that life begins at conception. Therefore, when life begins at conception, the rights of the unborn, the rights of the foetus, should be protected.
We have in this country a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and yet that Charter of Rights does not protect the unborn. We should make sure, we have to work hard and we have to strive to ensure, that the life of the unborn is protected from the beginning.
Canada needs a law, not this particular piece of legislation that the government wants to bring in. I cannot support it, I will not support it and I join many of my colleagues who feel the same. This particular bill, in my eyes, and in the view of many Canadians is a complete failure. Canada needs a law that will protect the unborn. We have to protect the unborn from the day of conception.
The other question that arises in protecting the unborn, how can you tell a 14 or a 16 year old girl who got
Government Orders
into trouble that she has to have that child? She goes home and says to her mother and her father: 'Mother, father, I have made a mistake." Or "I am pregnant." Then the father panics and says that she has to have an abortion. We have to reach out and educate Canadians. We have to reach out and educate every single Canadian that life is precious. If the father or the mother is to say to the young girl who got into trouble that they do not want her and she has to leave, then we have a moral responsibility as Canadians to protect and support that individual through her pregnancy and after her pregnancy.
In my riding there is a place where young mothers who want to keep their children and whose parents will not allow them to stay at home can and do go in order to go through their pregnancy and bring the child into the world.
In our country, there is a backlog of up to five years in some places for people who want to adopt children. There is also, I believe, a certain age limit over which people cannot adopt any children. Yet, many Canadians travel outside Canada to places such as Mexico, Brazil, and South Asia in order to adopt children. If we were to bring in a law that protects the unborn and if the pregnancy was to be fulfilled, if the young mother does not want to have the child, and that child was to be given up for adoption, then we will make a family that cannot bear children happy. They will be very glad to look after that child.
We have also to provide education for our youth, education that says to young people: If you make the mistake, we will provide for you. However, this is what you do so you do not make mistakes. We have to bring in legislation that protects and encourages our young people not to fall into that particular trap of unwanted pregnancies. Further, the government, in my view, has to bring in legislation that will provide and care for a young individual or a mother who wants to go through a pregnancy after conception.
In closing, I find it very difficult to support this bill. I cannot see how on one side the Prime Minister says it is going to be a free vote while the Cabinet is forced to vote one way. That clearly sends a message to the members on the other side that since the Cabinet is voting that way, if you do not toe the line, you will not be looked upon favourably.

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
Do we have a double standard on this? Do we not let individuals have a free vote on a very important moral issue? I find that a little disturbing. Democracy is not allowed to take its full course when a member is told that this is what he or she has to do on an issue which is very, very important. The Canadian people cannot tolerate such an action. It is like putting a gun to the member's head and saying: "You vote this way".
I cannot support it. I will not support it. I believe life starts at conception. I encourage colleagues in this House not to support this particular bill.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-43, whose purpose is to provide for legislation respecting abortion.
Since my speaking time is limited, I will not go into the details of this issue. As you know, Mr. Speaker, abortion is a very complex matter. People are divided in their opinions and we have a long way to go before a consensus is reached. On one side, we have those who say that abortion should be available on demand, while on the other side, people would like to see access to abortion restricted altogether. Where is the happy medium?
The abortion issue has created one of the most difficult dilemmas Canadians and Members of Parliament have had to face in recent years.
Like other Members, I received a large number of letters and telephone calls from my constituents and many other Canadians, all of whom expressed their views, firmly believing that their particular position was the best.
I would like to thank all these people for having shared their thoughts and views with me on this very delicate matter. Many of these people, Mr. Speaker, informed me that they wanted to see this dilemma resolved once and for all. Canadians expect their elected representatives to use the means at their disposal to fill the existing legal vacuum with respect to abortion.
Many believe that abortion should not be available on demand, but at the same time, they feel that access should not be eliminated entirely. I am sure my hon. colleagues have received similar comments.
As far as dealing with the abortion issue is concerned, the government has a wide variety of legal and political options at its disposal.
The government has been slow to table a bill on abortion, and I find this attitude deplorable. In fact, the former Minister of Justice promised he would table a bill as soon as possible, and this was some time ago.
Be that as it may, we must now deal with the issue before the House, Bill C-43.

This is a very sensitive question and certainly a moral dilemma. Personally, my view of abortion has evolved over the years. It has not remained static. I believe that in examining the bill on abortion it is important not to make a decision based on our own personal views alone. One must be prepared to sacrifice personal opinions and biases for the common good. To do otherwise would lead to a very selfish society, to say the least.
There is no doubt that the government has been remiss in not introducing companion legislation that would eradicate or reduce greatly the need for abortions.
The priority of this government and any successive governments should be to eliminate the need for abortions other than in life-threatening situations. To do this, the government must take action and not just talk about it. This government has been in office since 1984 and has yet to deliver on its promise for child care. What kind of message is that to Canadians? We need more education for all Canadians, especially young Canadians, to ensure that they become responsible citizens.
Society, through government, must offer an opportunity for women to handle unwanted pregnancies. We tend to blame the mother for the decision to have an abortion. But society must accept the blame because of its attitude toward these mothers. Society must accept the blame because of its negative attitude toward unwanted pregnancies. Society must accept the blame because of its failure to deal with the many social and economic problems faced by many women with unwanted pregnancies.
Bill C-43, according to the Minister of Justice, was supposed to be a compromise. Unfortunately, I have difficulty in reaching the same conclusions as the hon. minister. There is no doubt an abortion law is needed. However, the law must be a good one. If the bill is obviously poor and if it is found to be completely

unsatisfactory then the Member of Parliament is duty bound to deny it his support.
After reviewing this bill, C-43, it is obvious that it is abortion on demand. It is not a compromise but just a disguised bill that favours abortion on demand. A proper compromise could have limited abortions where the life of the mother, incest or rape is involved.
Another compromise could have been to decriminalize abortions. Neither of these compromises were attempted. Definitions of terms, such as the health of the mother, have not been sufficiently explained. The question of rights of the foetus has not been addressed either. This law will not resolve the current debate but only muddy the issue and prolong anguish and uncertainty that now exist on the question. As such, I must state that I will not be supporting Bill C-43.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 in my view is a fraudulent and dishonest piece of legislation. On the one hand, the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Justice, is prohibiting abortion by criminalizing abortion in the Criminal Code of Canada. In effect, it is telling Canadians that abortion is legal. On the other hand, however, it has defined the situations under which an abortion would be available in such a broad fashion as to result in abortion on demand.
Before addressing some particular provisions in Bill C-43, I would like to comment very briefly on the process that we are going through with respect to this particular piece of legislation. As you know, Canada has been without an abortion law since January 28, 1988 when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Criminal Code provisions dealing with abortion. For almost two years the government has failed to live up to its responsibility to provide the necessary leadership in order to ensure that abortion in Canada is regulated. There was an attempt to sense the will of the House of Commons when the government tried by way of resolution to get a clear consensus in the House and, of course, that particular process failed. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice on a number of occasions have indicated that legislation would be introduced and that
Government Orders
the legislation would recognize the pluralistic nature of Canadian society.
The Prime Minister also promised that there would be a free vote in the House of Commons. Well, let me say that there will not be a free vote. This particular piece of legislation is rigged. It is rigged in order to ensure passage of the bill. If we were dealing with a free vote situation, then the Prime Minister would not be instructing his cabinet ministers to support the legislation. The Minister of Justice would not be indicating to members of the House that the government would not be accepting amendments to this legislation.
If it were a true free vote situation, then all members of Parliament would be permitted to vote according to his or her own conscience. Well, they are not permitted to do so. Conservative back-benchers are told that they have a free vote on the matter but Conservative cabinet ministers are forced into supporting the position of the government. Having said that, it is clear that tomorrow this House will be called upon to decide whether or not this legislation should proceed further, whether or not this legislation should be considered by a legislative committee. In my view, it is essential that the bill pass tomorrow, that the bill be referred to a legislative committee because if this House does not support passage of Bill C-43 at second reading stage, regardless of how one might feel about this particular legislation, that will be the end of the matter as far as the House of Commons is concerned. In effect, the so-called prochoice people will have scored a significant victory in that there will be no legislation and the status quo will continue. We will continue to have no law in Canada. There will be abortion on demand.
However, if the bill is referred to committee there is an opportunity to amend the bill in order to ensure that the innocent unborn will be afforded the protection that they deserve.
I have spoken on many occasions over the past five years on the issue of abortion. My views are well known. I have introduced a number of private member's bills, the latest of which was introduced last September. I have spoken outside the House on many occasions. I would like to make it absolutely clear that I am opposed to abortion. I believe that abortion is morally wrong, that it

Government Orders
is the destruction of human life, that human life begins at the moment of conception and that it ought to be protected from the moment of conception to natural birth.
We as legislators, we as parliamentarians have no right to distinguish between human life after birth, regardless of how miserable a life may be after the moment of birth. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that every Canadian is entitled to the right to life. The right to life is the only absolute right that we as Canadians enjoy. We do not have capital punishment in Canada. Under no circumstances does the state or any individual have the right to take another life.
Every other right, whether it is the right to free speech or the right to freedom of assembly, or the right to the security of the person, those rights have to be balanced against other rights. The right to free speech is limited by the laws of slander. For example, the right of assembly is limited by municipal ordinance, and every other right that one can think of, those enunciated under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other rights under common law are subject and limited. The right to life is unlimited in Canada after birth. This government has not dealt with the crucial issue of foetal rights, when life begins.
Just last week the Supreme Court of Canada in the Daigle case confirmed that there is no recognition in Canada of foetal rights. It is incumbent upon this Parliament and the Government of Canada to indicate in a very explicit way that life begins before birth, that life begins at the moment of conception.
Bill C-43 is unenforceable. As I indicated, it is a fraudulent piece of legislation. There is absolutely no explicit recognition of foetal rights although one can argue that there is an implicit recognition of foetal rights. Why else would you have a piece of criminal legislation dealing with abortion?
In its present form, the bill is totally unenforceable; the question of abortion is rendered a medical decision if the health of the mother, and health is defined as being physical, mental or psychological, is deemed to be endangered. To use the words in the legislation itself: "if the health or life of the female person would be likely to be threatened" then an abortion can be performed.
The bill indicates that a medical practitioner must form the opinion, it does not indicate that the doctor who forms the opinion must perform the abortion. In effect, you can have one doctor forming the opinion and
another doctor performing the abortion. As I indicated, health is defined in such a broad way as to result in abortion on demand, and that is totally unacceptable.
I and I know other members intend to move amendments at committee to afford protection to the innocent unborn, but in order to do that and in order to have the opportunity to produce truly pro-life legislation, this bill must pass the second reading hurdle, and that happens tomorrow. Regardless of how bad this legislation is, in order to have that opportunity and avoid the situation where we will have absolutely no law at all, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. If the pro-life amendments are not accepted then we can defeat the bill at third reading stage.
[Translation\


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I could have waited and then gone ahead and voted on Bill C-43, but I felt that voting without giving any explanation would be taking the easy way out.
During the last election campaign, I was approached on several occasions by both pro-life and pro-choice group, and at the time, I announced that I supported pro-life.
I think the Bill as tabled by the government is an intellectual fraud which, on the face of it, would seem to satisfy both parties, pro-life and pro-choice. That is not the case, however. This evening, we are talking about a basic right, a right to life. To me, the issue is not women's rights or human rights but simply the right of a child from the time of conception, a child that has no other demands but to be bom and one day serve its fellow citizens. The way the bill was tabled, the impression was given that Cabinet of course had to support it, and the rest of the House was free to deal with the bill as it pleased. However, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case, because the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) already indicated in the House that there would be no amendments to this bill. And if there are no amendments, I can hardly support legislation that provides no remedies at all Mr. Speaker.
I think a fundamental principle, a moral issue and a matter of conscience are at stake here, and as I explained to many of my constituents, just because the polls or the majority of Canadians are pro-choice, I still don't think that I, as a Member of the House of Commons, elected by the people of the riding of Hull-Aylmer, should vote the way the majority votes. I think that a lot more is involved, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of conscience. I respect people who take a different view, but tomorrow, if there is a vote, I will have to vote against the bill, Mr. November 27, 1989

Speaker, because I cannot accept it in its present form, nor an I accept any of the amendments that may be tabled.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to oppose Bill C-43 and make a commitment that tomorrow I will not support that bill.
I believe that our society is a very compassionate society, and as a compassionate society we have to protect children. We have to protect those who are weaker than others, and in this case in particular we have to protect those unborn children. I believe that this bill has a very negative effect on compassion in this society.
I also believe that pregnant mothers suffer a great deal when we talk about abortion. The effects on those mothers who have had an abortion are very great and very dramatic.
Senator Hubert Humphrey of the United States stated that the test of a civilized society is how that society treats those in the dawn of life, in the margins of life and in the twilight of life. If we stop and consider it, abortion is a devastating set-back to our civilization.
When I stop and think about what a friend said to me a while back, it really is an issue of human compassion. I was the sixth of several children in my family and had this bill C-43 been in effect 40 years ago I may not be here today. In fact, that is very true. It is very true that Bill C-43 will allow abortions to go almost at hand on the demand of a pregnant woman and with the agreement of the doctor.
Statistics show that from 1970 to 1989, there has been a tremendous increase in the rate of abortion. In 1970, 11,000 abortions occurred. The upswing to 1989 has shown that 63,000 abortions have occurred to date. Eight-eight per cent of those occur before the thirteenth week of pregnancy, while only .4 per cent after the twentieth week.
Government Orders
Those who are having most abortions are unmarried women. They account for 78 per cent of abortions. Twenty per cent of abortion recipients have had prior abortions. Fifty-seven per cent of the women were childless. Abortions among those from age 15 to 19 was 21 per cent; 20 to 24 years of age, 31 per cent; 25 to 29 years, 22 per cent, which illustrates that a majority of abortions were in the younger age groups.
I believe that life begins at conception. Eighty-eight per cent of abortions are done on or before the thirteenth week which means that over 56,000 abortions were conducted when it was possible that some of these characteristics were in that foetus.
Some 18 days after conception heartbeat begins; at 30 days, foundation to the brain begins; at 43 days, brain waves start. At six weeks, the nervous system and muscles start working; at seven weeks, internal organs are present; at eight weeks, lines of hands develop; at eight and a half weeks, the child squints, fingertips close to the touch; at ten weeks, thyroid and adrenalin glands work; at twelve weeks, the child kicks, turns, curls, fans his toes, inhales, exhales, swallows and drinks fluids.
Certainly if we consider these actions we realize that this foetus at a very young age is a human being doing many of the human functions. I believe it is a crime that this bill considers the destruction of young children. Vince Collin, MD, on February 13, 1984 suggested that the human foetus experiences pain as early as 13 weeks. Foetal pain could be experienced simply by the mother moving. The child in the womb responds in a certain way by kicking or some other movement. By the eleventh week the foetus develops sensitivity to touch; the hands and the feet first move when they are touched.
As an educator I experienced many times that pregnant women when exposed to music and other stimuli during their pregnancy would increase the ability of that child to learn at later stages of life. Many things can be done to develop human qualities and human characteristics before the child is bom. Therefore, we must perceive that this young being is human at veiy early stages and abortion certainly ignores this.
Let us consider the 10 most common ways women have responded to abortion. Studies conclude that 100 per cent of the women surveyed showed that they grieve

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
when or after an abortion occurred. Some 92 per cent illustrated depression, 92 per cent illustrated anger and guilt. Fear that others would find out was illustrated in 89 per cent. Surprise emotion was illustrated by 85 per cent, and a lower sense of dignity was illustrated by 73 per cent. When we stop and think about that we realize that the woman who has had an abortion is certainly suffering from the effects of that abortion at later times as well.
Health is one of the reasons this bill gives in trying to justify abortions. It seems to me that 63,000 Canadian women, mostly between the ages of 15 and 29, are not at health risks, therefore statistics would illustrate that the reason for health and abortion does not seem to go together.
The proposed legislation bans abortion except when recommended by doctors for reasons of physical or mental health of patients. Will this reduce abortions? No, it will not. If 63,000 abortions are necessary, there would be a serious epidemic among those women. Unmarried women have a great percentage of those abortions carried out. Are unmarried women at more of a health risk than married women? I do not think so.
In 1987 a study in England and Wales showed that abortions in 1968 and 1986 revealed that only .005 per cent were actually for mothers in danger of losing lives. If we apply that figure to today's number of abortions needed for women in danger of losing their life, we would find that only three out of the 63,000 require protection of life. Therefore, it seems to me that that issue is not an important one either.
If statistics and history show that mental and physical danger are not real claims to reason for abortion, should the law protect the unborn? I believe it should. This law should enhance the right to life of children. The bill should provide an environment where women may have children and have alternatives to abortion. This bill does not fill those needs. This bill does not protect the right of the unborn or help mothers who are pregnant. I feel that this law is not a good one. It is one that I cannot support.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I consider the speech I am making tonight to be the most important intervention I have made in my 11 years in this
House. What we are talking about is truly a matter of life and death.
I had the opportunity to speak in the debate on capital punishment and I spoke against the state taking the lives of criminals, because I believe that the state should be consistent. That is, the state cannot say: "Thou shalt not kill, but I can". If I vote to save the lives of criminals, how much more important is it that I vote to protect the life of the unborn child?
Having been bom and reared on a farm many miles from a city, I came early to an understanding of the value of life, for generally children on farms were cherished. They were essential to the long-term viability of the health of the family and of the productivity of the land.
Even the lives of animals on farms were important. Human babies were cherished and, indeed, the wealth of the family was judged more by the size of the family than by the bank account, which was usually non-existent anyway. Times were tough, but generally our parents and grandparents had their priorities straight. Had it not been so, this country would not have grown, matured and prospered to the affluent state we have today.
It is true that our parents and grandparents did not have the knowledge and the easy access to birth control methods and means that we have today, or perhaps many of us would not be here and we would have had even more immigration. It is also true that there were more sacrifices demanded of our forebears, but are they or we any the worse for that? I think not.
Early on in our lives we were taught to cherish life, to love life, and to live it to the fullest, but living life to the fullest then meant to be productive, to share with others who were less fortunate, to contribute to the community's growth and development, to look after the weak, and to care for friends and neighbours.
Since the 1960s we have witnessed the explosion of knowledge, the growth of urban development, the flights to new frontiers, the era of medical transplants, and many other advances in science and technology which instead of making us more human, more caring, more secure and more loving too often tend to be in the opposite direction. In general, we seem to have become more ambitious, more grasping, more selfish, more uncaring. We are now surrounded by a very different
November 27, 1989

environment that makes it more difficult for us to recognize day after day the importance of certain values.
Let us look at the question facing us today. Should we allow abortions in this country, or should we not? On the one side, we have those who want women to have the right to have an abortion, period.
Those people are usually in favour of abortion for various reasons, but most of these reasons are the following: first, freedom of choice. They believe that women should have the right to decide when they want to be pregnant. They also believe that women should have the right to decide how many children they want to have. Many of them believe that by keeping control over their family they will have a better chance to pursue their education or their career. All of that is quite fine, but the question is: When does that control begin? Second is to preserve the mother's health and third is to protect the mental state of some women who would not be able to deal with pregnancy.
On the other hand there are those opposed to abortion. These people believe that abortion is actually an act by which the life of a human being is taken. They believe that abortion is in fact the killing of a baby, that it is criminal, and that it should be not allowed.
For my part I can tell you I strongly believe that a foetus is a living human being from the very moment the ovum and the sperm are united. At that moment the die is cast, the characteristics of the individual are irrevocably determined, and as such it has the right to life.
I want to make it clear that I agree with most of the concerns and aspirations of today's women. I am not saying that their aspirations are wrong. I totally support them, but I am saying I am opposed to the fact that abortion could be a means toward those ends.
I believe that there are positive solutions we must use or find. I believe that abortion is wrong. I believe that abortion is the killing of an unborn child. It is our duty as parliamentarians to help bring about the necessary changes to make this country a place where families and mothers will feel confident and happy to give birth. It is our duty as parliamentarians to concentrate on solutions that will help those changes happen.
Government Orders
We have to be serious. No longer can we make empty promises. No longer can we make more equivocation. We must act. We are a caring nation. We always have been. We will make sure that women will have equal opportunity, equal rights, and equal pay for work of equal value.
If we are a caring nation we will make sure that women will have adequate maternity benefits and adequate incentives and safeguards to allow for both motherhood and career. We will make sure to address the problems facing single mothers, especially those living in poverty. We will make sure to address the problems facing the children of our country, our most important natural resource. I believe that if we find solutions to these problems we will find the solution to abortion and the solution to many other social problems that no legislation can or will solve completely.
I want to tell you that I am for life and I believe there are other ways to solve the problems of women than killing the unborn. As far as I am concerned, it is very clear and simple. I am opposed to abortion, and I will vote against this bill because I believe that it is virtually abortion on demand.
This legislation is another example of a government afraid to take a stance. This is another example of a government taking both sides of the issue. This is another example of a lack of leadership. This is another example of smoke and mirrors politics.
It is time for this government to cease the systematic destruction of our social programs. It is time for this government to address the serious problem facing the country rather than try to abolish symptoms. It is time for this government to say no to the killing of the unborn and to say yes to life.
It is time for this government to examine its collective conscience and have the courage to change its mindless flight to discredited theories of the past and to create the kinds of social programs that will address these problems and make it unnecessary for the killing of the unborn. It is time for compassion, enlightenment and innovation. It is time to say no to the killing of the unborn and to say yes to life.
It is time for all of us to put our priorities in order and to make number one the priority of the development of systems that will make it possible for women to bear children and still maintain a place in the workplace. I will

Government Orders
vote against this bill. I was not elected to be an accessory to the destruction of human life.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, follow the theme developed by many of the members who have spoken on this issue in the House in the last few weeks. We have been thinking about the seriousness of the issue in front of us and the number of hours we have all put in in our constituency offices and in Parliament. We have been thinking about the problems at hand and about what our colleagues have said before us and what people will say after us, and about how the public is judging the importance of this debate. I know that in the Liberal caucus it has been a subject of many hours of discussion because of the diverse views and each one of us approaches this from our own perspective in a very serious manner.
It is with a combination of sadness and determination that I must oppose this particular piece of legislation. I am opposing it because I think that there is no place in the Criminal Code for this particular amendment. The issue at hand for me is whether or not having an abortion is a criminal activity. The essence of the government's decision and the legislation it has put in front of the House of Commons is that abortion should be treated as a criminal activity and therefore those people involved with it, particularly doctors, should be subject to criminal examination under the criminal law.
I for one find that this is a most difficult situation, one in which there is much private agony for a woman. Whether she is on her own or discusses this with friends or others, I cannot think of any situation more difficult for someone to go through and I think it is wrong to combine that with a piece of legislation which says that on top of dealing with this very difficult moral situation, you also must deal with the law which makes this a crime.
For that reason I have decided to vote against this particular piece of legislation. I wish the government to understand that the use of the criminal law is no way to deal with one of the most serious issues on a personal level, and therefore on a societal level, that we have in front of us.
Although the government has presented itself as being very brave in the presentation of this legislation, saying that in fact it has shown great management, that it has shown itself to be a leader on both a moral and legally difficult question, in fact it has walked away from some of the most important questions facing us.
Those questions deal, first, with the health system. Because most of our health system is administered provincially, we have questions of definition of health and questions of definition of access to be determined not by the federal government but in the provincial system. For women the question becomes not only what is the national law, but in fact what is the legislation in each province.
There are already regions in this country where women do not have access to medical help in situations such as this. This will only be making it more difficult because not only do you have the moral question but you have the legal parameters which make many people afraid of getting involved with these situations.
Second, the administration of the criminal law generally speaking falls to the provincial government. The definition of what action should be taken and the definition of who should be prosecuted will end up falling in the Attorney General's office. Thus the two most important components of this piece of legislation, the definition of health which follows from the administration of health and the definition of an illegal activity, in fact fall within the parameters of the provincial governments.
For those reasons, instead of presenting us with a most progressive approach to a difficult problem, the government has in fact walked away from it entirely. It disappoints me greatly that we are going to be left with a criminal definition and no other suggestions.
Also, though the Minister of Health has intervened very briefly in this debate to indicate there will be new family legislation, I join my many colleagues to say that one of the sad things in this country is that once people are bom into it, in many circumstances, whether we are talking about reserves in northern Manitoba or low income families in downtown Winnipeg or elsewhere in this country, the plight of children weighs heavily upon all of us.
Although the Canadian government supports this universal declaration on the rights of children that is being discussed in the United Nations, in reality when it
November 27, 1989

comes to showing Canadians that their children will be looked after, that there will be nourishment, that there will be education, that there will be appropriate laws, that there will be supports for them, the Canadian government is totally absent.
In all particular efforts, whether we are talking about dealing with family law or family support systems for children the Criminal Code, this government has walked away from its responsibilities. In that respect the particular proposal to criminalize abortion should be rejected and the House of Commons should give every indication to the women of this country that as they make these difficult decisions, those are decisions that they make themselves, those are not decisions that we are going to impose upon them, that we respect their freedom and we respect their independence.
[Translation\


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on this bill because this piece of legislation upsets me. I would much rather have spoken on a bill that talked about life, the right to life, this ultimate right which precedes all others. This bill deals with existence and non-existence, and for those like me who believe that life begins at conception, this bill is a matter of life and death.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, every one of us pursues freedom, all freedoms, freedom of expression, freedom to choose what we please, freedom to live our life as we see fit. But this pursuit of freedom should never lead us to refuse life and to make a judgement against life. I believe that if we took such a course, we would be mistaken.
The bill which the government has presented to us is an abdication of its responsibility to govern, to give Canadians direction, some clear indication, and I believe it also has a responsibility to protect life. As it is now written, this bill is an open door to abortion, it is abortion on demand, birth control via abortion. For me, this approach is completely unacceptable. I also find it unacceptable for this government to present us with such a vague and open bill that it will lead both supporters of the right to abortion and supporters of the right to life to vote against it for completely opposite reasons. Should
Government Orders
that happen, which seems quite likely, we would find ourselves with no law to protect and guarantee the foetus' right to life.
When he presented this bill to the House, the Minister of Justice told us that it was a compromise-the only compromise which the government could put forward. I would have hoped that if there had to be compromise, the government would have compromised on the side of life. I am very disappointed with this option which the government has chosen and also with the way it has chosen to proceed.
Very briefly, I can say I have no problem when people talk about protecting life, since in cases where the mother's life would have been at risk, no one would have denied the mother the same right to life.
I also have a problem with the various stages at which the bill will be considered. It is now being considered on second reading and will then go to committee. If I had any hope that the bill might be reported back with significant amendments, I would be inclined to support the bill on second reading. However, I am afraid the bill might come back from committee without amendments. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) raised these doubts in my mind when he said the government could not accept any amendments and that the bill had to go ahead as tabled.
So you see the kind of dilemma I am facing. If I vote for the bill on second reading, the government may think it can go ahead and consider my vote as positive support for the bill. It may choose to go ahead without any amendments, and finally, the bill might not survive third reading, which brings us back to square one, and we would still have no legislation.
So I think it is unacceptable that we have no laws to protect this life, to give this right,-I should not say give, because it is not ours to give-to protect and secure the foetus' right to life.

In conclusion, I want to make very clear that I support the protection of life. I think the government should have come up with a bill that would have given this protection to the foetus and I will vote accordingly so that life is afforded all the protection we can give it.

November 27, 1989
Government Orders


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, everyone finds that they are in a unique position, a most difficult position in this debate. I rise as a member of the New Democratic Party and also as an ex-principal of a Catholic school for some 26 years. To suggest other than what I am about to suggest, I believe I would be labelled as a hypocrite. I am proud to be a member of my party, and I am also proud of my stance.
I would like to quote Father Bob Ogle who, on November 18, 1980, delivered a speech on abortion. He stated, as reported at page 4826 of Hansard:
The human rights which 1 support are, first, the right to be born; second, the right to adequate food, housing, medical care, and education; third, the right to live in, at least, frugal comfort within one's cultural tradition; fourth, freedom of conscience, worship expression, political participation and peaceful dissent; fifth, equal treatment in public, job markets, and courts, regardless of sex, age, ethnic origin, marital status, religious of political beliefs, social and economic status; sixth, the right to social assistance when age or other circumstances make self-support inadequate; and seventh, the right to die with dignity.
I am proud to espouse those same principles.
People asked me just one year ago how I could become a New Democrat and have an anti-abortionist stance. I am proud of both of my decisions. Over the past month I have undergone the most poignant, gut-wrenching, if you will, period of my life. I know that our party has a pro-choice stance but I believe that our party has the most pro-life philosophies and policies of any party available to the Canadian public.
I am going to digress, no doubt, from the context of my speech. I am going to thank my women colleagues in the New Democratic Party for empathizing with me at a most difficult time in my life. I have become very sensitive to what they believe in and I believe that they have shown empathy to me. Through this all, they have taught me a great deal. Once we have become sensitized to one another, the issue has not become any easier. In fact, it has become much more difficult. They have told me that we must continue to dialogue and we have continued to dialogue.
My party stands for choice. It was clear and it is clear that I have not agreed with the position. We, nevertheless, stand together against this legislation for different reasons. But even in this variance in opinion we agree
that the proposed legislation is nothing more than a sham, a feeble attempt at a compromise.
It is proffered that if you do not vote for this, you are not getting anything in its stead; this is the best you can expect. I believe that oftentimes in politics, compromise is important but on this issue I do not believe the compromise is acceptable.
In isolation the abortion issue cannot be addressed. In this legislation there is no mention of the rights of the foetus. There is no accompanying legislation, no mention of social spending, no mention of assistance in areas of obvious need, counselling, infrastructure, support systems, adoption; nothing to address the obvious significant demand for abortion. We must reduce this demand but we can only do it through legislation that helps, not hinders the poor, the homeless, the uncared for and the unloved.
We can be occupied with deficits but not preoccupied with them. We must be concerned with GST's and clawbacks, but not overly concerned. We must be concerned with foreign aid, but not overly concerned when our own suffer each and every day. We should not persecute those who make their choice, although different from ours, because it is not an acceptable way to act. We should not accuse others of being chauvinist or feminist because of the choices they have made. We must not pretend to not understand or appreciate the opposing viewpoints when we truly do understand and appreciate.
These are the letters that I have received in one week, I think because of my station in life prior to my position as a member of Parliament. I would like to say that I have read them all. It does not make the decision any easier. I will say that I am a little disappointed in some of my friends at home because some long-term associates greeted me with "Dear Mr. Butland, My future political decisions will be based on your vote". There were no P.S.'s saying "Hi Steve, how are you doing?", nothing personalized at all. They were generic letters from people that I knew and know and am very friendly with on a regular basis. I hope that they will not be affronted by what I have said but that we can continue to dialogue as well.
I have literally thousands of generic letters. I received one letter that touched me to the very core and I would
November 27, 1989

like to read just a few excerpts because I think this woman has put it more succinctly and more poignantly than any of the other thousands of letters I have received.
It reads: "I would like to address the issue of abortion and would appreciate your reading this letter. I was an unwanted child bom into an alcoholic home. I was severely abused; physically, sexually, emotionally and psychologically. I now cany the scars of this abuse. If abortion had been legal then I am sure I would not be writing this letter today. I have been in therapy for 13 years, have contemplated suicide many times and have had two emotional breakdowns. I wake up with the pain in the morning and I go to bed with it at night. My point to you, Sir, is not that I should not have been bom but, instead, that I had every right to be born and every right to walk this planet for the last number of years. My only mistake all those years was believing I did not have a right to the air that I breathe."
It really does get more and more poignant as it continues and I think that it is appropriate that I stop now.
I will be opposing this legislation because it does not take a stand on either side of an issue which demands a very definite stand.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in this House to debate one of the most important issues facing our nation, Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion. I feel I must rise this evening and speak in this debate in order to put my opinions forward as unequivocally as possible. Tonight in this Chamber we are debating abortion but, more important, we are debating life.
The bill proposed by the Conservative government was presented as a bill that attempted to strike a compromise between the right of the woman to personal freedom, to personal choice, to personal privacy and, of course, the community's and the nation's interest in protecting the right to life of the unborn child.
Obviously the government thought that this bill represented a balanced approach. Well, it is not a balanced approach to the issue of life. Hon. members, everything I believe, everything that I hold dear, my social and cultural make-up, my personal beliefs as a human being, tells me that abortion is wrong. I feel within myself,
Government Orders
passionately, that abortion is against the natural order. It negates the essence of our being.
This bill does absolutely nothing to protect the life of the unborn child. It does not in any way answer the fundamental question, the question of life. It does not address the value and the dignity of human existence. This bill's definitions are unbelievably vague. The bill states that abortion is prohibited unless the mother's health is endangered, but how does the government define health? The definition is so broad and so vague that we are basically speaking about abortion on demand.
Who is this government trying to fool? This government, I believe, really needs to do some soul searching from within, it needs to look within itself and take a serious stand on this extremely important issue. I think this government has failed drastically with this bill. I particularly do not think that abortion on demand is the answer to building a caring, compassionate and humanitarian society, a responsible society.
There is no question in my mind that personal freedom, personal liberty, is one of the most fundamental characteristics of our state, of our nation. However, I must also say that the personal freedom of one individual should take into consideration the impact, the effects it has on other lives and one must always focus on the essence of human rights and human dignity. Nor does personal freedom give you a licence to destroy other life. Thus, tonight we have to debate the right of the mother versus the right of the unborn.
Tonight I am going to speak on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves, the unborn children of our nation. As members of Parliament, we are all here today simply because our parents decided to allow us to live. Quite frankly, with all due respect to my mother, I do not think she had the right to decide whether I should continue to live or not.
All of the hon. members in this House I am sure are happy to be alive. If we can make this statement consciously and responsibly, then I do not understand how any of us can accept giving the responsibility and the right to anyone to decide on who will live and who will not. Abortion is a human issue that affects all of us. We never think of leaving an abandoned child to die. We take great pain in seeing children in poor countries dying of malnutrition and starvation. Our hearts go out to them. Why then do we allow ourselves and why do we

November 27, 1989
Government Orders
allow thousands of babies bom alive in late term abortions to die? How can we allow millions more to be destroyed in the womb and still do nothing about it?
I firmly and passionately believe that we owe the same responsibility to these unfortunates as we do to all other human beings. We certainly have the right and the obligation to initiate laws and to establish laws to protect all human life. We have it in our power to re-establish the value of human life and respect due to it.
We often hear this so-called right to choose argument. While often cited, I believe it is irrelevant to the issue. The issue is not the right of the mother to control her own body, but whether she has the right to decide the future of another human being who shares her body. The innocent baby is certainly denied the right to choose. No one has the right to take the life of another person at will. Not the doctor, not the mother. Absolutely no one.
If there is a cause to be concerned about the health of the mother, then as a society we must make all possible efforts to save, not just one life, but both.
We must remember that pregnancy is not an illness. It is a natural state, a beautiful gift of life that unfortunately many people are not able to experience. We must build a nation that welcomes childbirth rather than promote abortions.
As Parliamentarians, I think we must devote our attention toward building the type of socio-economic infrastructure that will give the unborn child a better chance to live. Today, with the introduction of this bill we have taken a serious step backwards. We should concentrate our energies on better education, more accessible social services such as day care, counselling, adequate housing for the disadvantaged, a social safety net that will mean that women of this nation, by giving birth to a
child are not signing their names on the poverty role of our nation. Unfortunately, in this country this is the reality. More attention should be placed on the identification of causes of abortion so that our social and economic structure can better address the needs of our people.
As a Member of Parliament, I have always believed that one of my important duties and obligations was to represent those Canadians who, through no fault of their own, could not help themselves, the disadvantaged. The unborn child is certainly disadvantaged. He cannot express his views. He cannot manifest his emotions or his feelings. He is helpless and weak. I cannot accept the law that will allow the continuous destruction of human life. We must help people at the most vulnerable point of their lives. We must have faith and endure to protect human life. Canadians must realize that caring for the unborn child is the cornerstone and the beginning of a caring nation, caring for our future and caring for our people.
I am sure that the residents of York North agree that all measures must be taken by this government to make sure that the life of the unborn child is protected. I will vote against this bill because it does not show any consideration for the life of the unborn child.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The debate on the motion for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-43 is adjourned to the next sitting of the House, pursuant to order made Thursday, November 23, 1989.
Pursuant to order made Thursday, November 23, 1989 this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.07 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 28, 1989