1990-05-24

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I would like to lay upon the table in both official languages a number of international agreements which are already in effect.


COMMONWEALTH COMMITTEE OF FOREIGN MINISTERS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32, I would like to lay upon the table three documents emanating from the recent meeting of the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers dealing with southern Africa which met in Abuja, Nigeria, on May 16 and 17.
I would like to table the concluding statement of that meeting, a copy of the Abuja commitment that was signed at that meeting and the text of a letter sent to the foreign ministers of the European Community and the foreign ministers of the G-7 signed by the nine ministers who are members of the Commonwealth committee on events in southern Africa.
With the indulgence of the House, I might perhaps ask members to pay particular heed to the letter, a quite
extraordinary document, signed by nine ministers sent to members of the European Community and the G-7 setting forth our view on the appropriateness of maintaining sanctions now in place with respect to South Africa.


PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to lay upon the table a petition signed by numerous electors of Sarnia and other places in Ontario. This petition is being submitted pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The signers of this petition object to the GST because they consider it unfair and regressive, and they call upon Parliament to reject it.


Mr. Boudria:: Let us do it now!


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I have here a petition signed by numerous residents of the electoral riding of Ottawa-Vanier; this petition was circulated in the riding by way of circulars, and it is meant to express strong disagreement with the government's proposed goods and services tax.
These Canadians fear that the proposed tax will have an inflationary impact and will decrease our ability as Canadians, to maintain our standard of living. They therefore humbly submit a proposal to the effect that this House, and this Parliament in particular, reject the proposal to impose on Canadians a 7 per cent goods and services tax beginning in January 1991.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, it is also my honour and privilege to submit a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. This petition is signed by a number of residents of the riding of Kingston and the Islands, who, since the last election, have been so well represented in this House by my distinguished and erudite colleague.

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
I would like to voice my support for this petition which the electors of Kingston and the Islands have signed to ask the Conservative Government to withdraw its proposed goods and services tax forthwith.
I am convinced, Madam Speaker, that we could all make up our minds immediately and withdraw this tax which is so regressive. Let us do it now!


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a further petition signed by people in my riding from such places as Osoyoos, Penticton, Summerland, as well as other places in the province of British Columbia such as Hope and Kelowna.
These are a further 163 names that I am adding to the thousands of names on petitions which I have already placed before the House from people within British Columbia asking this government to reject the current proposal for the goods and services tax. This petition asks the government to cease with its proposal that would shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians-through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, be read the third time and passed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I know that there is a special order which has been adopted by the House concerning the debate on third reading of Bill C-43. If one reads it attentively, a Whip can stand in his place and propose to the House that his party would like to split the allocated 20 minutes speeches, plus the 10-minute questions and comments allowed after each of our rounds.
I would like to give notice to the Chair that as Whip of the Liberal party we would like to split our time into two 10-minute periods, each period followed by a 5-minute question and comment period.


Mr. Angus:: Madam Speaker, I just wish to advise the House that the speakers for the New Democratic Party will take their full 20 minutes as individual speakers.
If we have a decision later on to split our time between two members, we will advise the House at the beginning of that speech where we will split into two periods of 10 and 5.
We assume that the normal rotation will be adhered to.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, may I make one further comment. In the interest of all members knowing what is going on, since the debate will probably last until late tonight and could collapse some time tomorrow morning, by 9.59 a.m. at the latest, I wonder if we could have notice from the other parties as to when they intend to go to 10-minute speeches, plus 5 minutes for questions and comments, so that we can organize our people around that arrangement.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I think the suggestion by the House leader of the Official Opposition is most appropriate.
We have already started to try to get a sense of the length of time that the House will be functioning today, tonight, and perhaps tomorrow morning so that we do have an indication of when the debate may end rather than have some accidents occur, which has happened from time to time.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I can just indicate from our side that at the moment we have about 13 speakers who wish to participate in the debate. We do not have an indication yet as to whether or not any of those members are willing to split their time. However, we will do all in
May 24, 1990

our power to inform the House and the other members in order to help them in their planning.
While I am on my feet, may I suggest that perhaps all three parties would agree to sit through the lunch hour to make sure that we have a little more time for people to speak and to give more opportunities to members.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, on the proposal that we sit through lunch hour I really do not have any objections. Members understand that there will be no supper break. Once we start at three o'clock after Question Period we will proceed continuously until the debate collapses.
Thus, if we do sit through the lunch hour, it would mean that our assistants in the House, the clerks, messengers and others, would be well advised to plan their lunches appropriately because we will not get any.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mrs. Campbell (Vancouver Centre), seconded by Mr. Cooper, moved that Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, be now read the third time and pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the interest of keeping things in order, I do not think a parliamentary secretary can second a motion. If so, may we have a ruling from the Chair as to whether it is in order for a parliamentary secretary to second a motion.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: There are 38 of them. Surely to goodness more than one of them can be here.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary can properly second a motion, so the motion is seconded by Mr. Cooper.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He is so competent he should be a minister.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the commentary from the other side of the House on the competence of our members who should all be ministers.
I rise today to address you, Madam Speaker, on the issue of abortion, one of the most controversial and divisive issues in society today, an issue about which we all have very different views.
Government Orders
As colleagues and parliamentarians, our roles have been challenged as never before on the subject of abortion.
We have been challenged by the strongly held views of our constituents and by the debates which have occurred over every element of the physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual aspects of abortion.
The members who sat on the legislative committee on abortion heard arguments from individuals and groups representing all sides of the debate.
The arguments advanced by the proponents of free choice as well as by the representatives of the pro life movements were founded on principles and were convincing.
As individuals, our views on abortion are no less strong than those of the voters whom we represent or of the lobby groups defending a particular position.
In fact, certain ministers and members have publicly expressed their personal views on this matter, and rightly so.

As parliamentarians, we are all aware of our duty to act not in our own interests, but in the interests of those we represent.
Given the diversity of beliefs held, there are those who might question whether it is possible to find some common ground to meet the expectations of Canadians in our role as representatives of the Canadian people.
The Supreme Court of Canada stated in the Morgen-taler case that while the function of the Supreme Court is to review legislation in order to determine if a particular legislative balance of interests was consistent with constitutional guarantees, it is up to parliament, first, to strike that balance.
Two years have passed since the Supreme Court declared the former abortion law unconstitutional. All three majority judgments of the court concurred that Section 251 of the Criminal Code, which had been the law for 19 years, was a violation of the security of the person and the principles of fundamental justice as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
In so stating, the highest court in the land has recognized that there is a balance to be made in society between what they describe as the state's interest in the foetus and the rights of a woman.
It is our job to strike that balance.

Despite the problems this represents, it is possible for us, as parliamentarians, to find a common ground on which to meet the expectations of Canadians.
If we hope to find this common ground, it is very important for us to understand that the legislation will necessarily reflect more than one viewpoint.
When we speak of common ground, we are not necessarily speaking of a compromise, but rather of coming to some sort of arrangement. An accommodation on such a thorny issue as abortion is extremely difficult for those who were involved in the drafting of the proposed legislation.
Nevertheless, Bill C-43 is the end result of a marvelous exercise in parliementary responsibility, in that it reflects the different viewpoints and interests of society, while upholding constitutional guarantees.

I have enormous respect for the process by which this bill was created and for what it represents in terms of common ground.
Very often, as I said in my speech at second reading, we have shared common ground, but for very different reasons.
Bill C-43, in my view, is a remarkable creation and a tribute to those who put it together.
We have been elected to provide leadership in dealing with the situation we now face.
As the Prime Minister said in his speech before you in November of 1989, "we must achieve a solution that is philosophically sound, constitutionally correct, politically acceptable and administratively practicable; that is, a solution which can be understood and implemented".
Bill C-43 exemplifies such a solution.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has been a committed supporter of the pro-life position over the years, supports Bill C-43.
In the debate on second reading I explained why I, committed to pro-choice, was able to support the bill before the House.
I remain confident that Bill C-43 reflects a balance of the views of the Canadian people and protects their vital interests in a way that will be acceptable to the majority of Canadians.
I would now like to present a brief overview of Bill C-43.
The government has proceeded by using the criminal law power because this bill is primarily related to the protection of fundamental values, reflecting our commitment to the protection of life, health, human dignity, equality, and social order.
Criminal law embodies deeply held social values and attempts to balance them with the rights of individuals. It is therefore appropriate that we deal with the abortion issue within a legal framework which is based on these considerations.
All of the judges of the majority, in the Morgentaler case, recognized the usual purpose of the Criminal Code provisions relating to abortion, that is, the protection of the life and health of the woman, and the protection of the foetus.

The justices also acknowledged the validity of the legislative objective aimed at offering this protection. Mr. Justice Beetz stated that it was a valid objective in Canadian criminal law.
The Supreme Court of Canada showed that it was mindful of the role of the legislative branch. We realize that the legislative balance we are seeking will be examined by the courts to ensure that it is consistent with the Charter. However, we must first begin by assuming our responsibilities in the democratic process and seeking out this balance.
However imperfect it may be, the legislative process is still the best way to achieve a consensus. We cannot refuse to do our duty, which is to resolve this matter. Nor can we force the courts to do our job for us.

I wish to emphasize that provinces cannot stiffen the criminal law, nor can they weaken it. The criminal legislation should enable us to establish a uniform

standard for all of Canada, something that does not exist at the present time in the area of abortion.
Abortion has been put into the Criminal Code in order to balance and protect throughout the pregnancy the rights of the woman who seeks an abortion and the societal interest in the protection of the foetus.
It is thoughtless and misleading to say that Bill C-43 is making criminals out of women and doctors. This bill prohibits a number of specific activities: abortions performed by non-medical practitioners who may carry out abortions under unsanitary and unsafe conditions, abortions performed without forming an opinion as to the health grounds, the unlawful sale of unauthorized abor-tifacients, toxic devices or equipment used to induce abortions, and self-induced abortions.
To understand the effects of Bill C-43 on access to abortion, it is necessary to appreciate its implications for clarifying and helping to establish a national standard of entitlement to abortion.
The provision of abortion services as a health care issue falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Thus, it is the responsibility of each province and territory to deal with access to abortion services.
The federal government does not have the jurisdiction to regulate health practices in Canada.
Nevertheless, this bill does assist in providing access.
Not only does it lack a number of legal impediments that existed under the old law, such as therapeutic abortion committees, restrictions on which doctors could perform abortions, and hospital requirements, but it also improves upon the current situation.
Bill C-43 will give the provinces the guidance they have asked for on the legal framework and national approach to entitlement to abortion.

From a constitutional perspective, I would like to point out that the provision of health care services is not regulated under the Canada Health Act. Rather, this act is a financial statute adopted pursuant to the federal government's spending power.
Government Orders
To suggest that it would be possible to incorporate in the Canada Health Act a provision ensuring access to abortion services is wrong. This reflects a poor understanding of Canada's constitutional reality.
The federal government does not have the power to regulate the provision of health care services. The definition of "health", which includes physical, mental and psychological health, is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling in the Morgentaler case according to which the provisions of Section 7 of the Charter respecting the security of the person include physical and psychological security.
It is important to look at health as it relates to the human being as a whole. The circumstances which compel a woman to seek an abortion will most certainly be taken into account by the medical practitioner when he or she arrives at a decision and determines whether not performing an abortion is likely to threaten the physical, mental or psychological health of the woman.
This decision by the medical practitioner is not an abstract one. Rather, it takes into consideration the personal situation of the woman.
This approach allows the medical practitioner to examine all the repercussions, should he or she decide not to perform the abortion, and not only to consider the effects that continuing the pregnancy would have.
The foetus is protected throughout the pregnancy because of the non-gestational approach of the bill. Those who oppose abortion do not wish to see gestational limits in the legislation because such limits suggest a varying value of human life at different times of pregnancy. Those who favour a woman's choice view gestational limits as unnecessary and based on the myth that women seek abortions late in pregnancy when, in actual fact, 89 per cent of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
The bill achieves protection for the foetus in the Criminal Code which generally protects fundamental social values. The bill does not allow for abortion on demand since specific health grounds must be met. Only therapeutic abortions are permitted based on health grounds and a doctor's opinion.

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
The generally accepted standards of the medical profession apply to any opinion formed by a doctor. The decision a doctor makes is an opinion formed in good faith as required by the canon of medical ethics of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
The Canadian Medical Association has expressed a concern that the doctors of Canada will be under a fear of prosecution if this bill becomes law. Doctors should not be afraid. I would suggest that what this bill describes as legal behaviour is nothing more than good medical practice. It must be remembered that the responsibilities of doctors under the terms of Bill C-43 are similar to their responsibilities under the former legislation.
The veiy real difference from the old law is that no extraneous administrative procedures or outside opinions are required. Under the new bill the doctor will apply accepted medical standards in order to decide whether or not to induce an abortion, how and where to do so, and whether or not to seek outside opinions.

Given all the benefits of the bill that I have outlined for you, I believe that Bill C-43 is the best legislative formula and that it can stand up to any legal challenge based on the Charter.
It achieves a balance reflecting the concerns raised by the Supreme Court.
The bill provides that the decision to have an abortion or not is based on health reasons.
A person desiring an abortion must consult a physician, as for any other medical procedure.
The definition of "health" is broad and allows taking into consideration all factors essential to the protection of the woman's right to security of her person.

But the Supreme Court did not speak only of a woman's rights under the Charter. There were a number of references to the importance of the protection of the foetus by all.
Madam Justice Bertha Wilson who wrote one of the reasons for judgment said in the Morgentaler case: "The situation respecting a woman's right to control her own
person becomes more complex when she becomes pregnant and some statutory control may be appropriate."
In introducing Bill C-43 we have made a very careful effort to comply with constitutional requirements and we believe that the proposed bill would be a workable law within constitutional parameters.
The federal government cannot prevent people from attempting civil actions since civil actions are governed by provincial law. However, in the Daigle decision the Supreme Court of Canada gave a strong indication against the availability of civil actions to prevent women from exercising their rights.

Private prosecutions are extremely rare in this field.
Anyone can lay charges under a provision of the Criminal Code.
However, the attorney general in each province has the power to suspend proceedings in a case where the private prosecution is undertaken for frivolous or malicious motives or is not in the public interest.
In light of past experience and the requirements for evidence for charges laid under this provision, an unfounded lawsuit is very unlikely.

As the Minister of National Health and Welfare has made clear, there is no intention that this bill be used to harass Canadian women or doctors. Aside from the factors I have just mentioned which make such harassment highly improbable, attempts to abuse the criminal process themselves incur severe legal penalties.

Many Canadians did not hesitate to express their various interests, which occasionally reflected contrary opinions.
We respect their opinions.
Nevertheless, we must assert our responsibilities and fill the void created by such divergent views.
If we are unable to achieve this balance, we are not meeting our responsibilities as representatives of the people.
May 24, 1990



Earlier I spoke of leadership in our roles as parliamentarians. Leadership means having the courage to bring forward an abortion bill which seeks to answer the concerns of Canadians. Parliament is not perfect but each of us comes here as a representative of Canadian people with particular outlooks. If we take our responsibilities seriously, we will not simply be advocates of one particular position but we will recognize that the most important issues in our society are not always black and white.

Our work as elected members requires us to try to "square the circle" and seek common ground.
This bill is remarkable evidence of the finest parliamentary tradition and we have the required expertise to find the common ground on which Parliament can pass a law on this most controversial issue.

We may not be imbued with all wisdom and knowledge in this endeavour, but there can be no doubt that we have given every ounce of our energy to arriving at a suitable solution and we have fulfilled our duty in addressing the issue of abortion in the best interests of Canadians.
My colleagues and I are convinced that this bill comes closer than any practical alternative in a moderate, practicable and balanced solution. It is philosophically sound, constitutionally valid and workable. I would ask that you support Bill C-43 and vote in favour of its successful passing into law.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Minister of Justice and her rationale for the government proceeding with this bill.
She said that the bill is in the interests of those whom we, as members of this House of Commons, represent. I would like to comment that by reducing access for women who are seeking abortion by throwing this issue back into the courts of this country, which is sure to happen as women have already said, and by agonizing doctors and women in this country, I do not believe is in the interests of those we represent.
Government Orders
She talked about a balance of views. Whose views, Madam Speaker? Sixty-two per cent of Canadians in an Environics poll in November said they did not want criminal legislation on abortion. The majority of Canadians are opposed to it. She said we cannot refuse to perform our duties as legislators. I would say to the Minister of Justice that we do have a duty. Those of us, particularly those of us who are women and have articulated a position in favour of the integrity of Canadian women, have also a duty to those women. The minister has articulated that position in the past and she is now reversing that position.
Our role should be to do something effective about this issue, to do something that is truly effective and compassionate about unwanted pregnancies. Of course, that would be to support families and research into family planning, to support research into safe and effective methods of contraception, to support women and children and not to throw this bill into the Criminal Code.
She said it was misleading to say that Bill C-43 criminalizes women and doctors but it is not. That is what this bill does. She talked about national entitlement. The constitutional experts and the lawyers in the universities across this country have written to her and said that this is legal nonsense. They have said that she is relying on jurisprudence that is 20 years out of date as far as federal paramountcy goes.
My final comment is that the minister said she was committed to the pro-choice position in this country. I would like to ask her, in view of supporting this legislation and in view of standing in this House last night and voting in opposition to the only pro-choice amendment that was before this House, how can she stand here and tell Canadian women and the people of this country that she is committed to pro-choice?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to say that I am committed to the pro-choice position and have been. The point that I have made is that I think this bill is consistent with the pro-choice position. The hon. member has made a number of comments which I would like to address but I realize that there is limited time.
One thing that I would like to point out though is that she makes reference to lawyers' opinions which have challenged my view on the relationship of this bill to other legislation. First of all, those opinions which were commissioned have never been provided to me. People

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
have felt free to call into question ray competence and integrity without providing to me the opinions on which those were based. I have succeeded in getting some of them, not all of them, and I understand that the group which commissioned the opinion is not circulating the opinion which happens to agree with me.
I would refer the hon. member to the footnote of Mr. Bruce Ryder's opinion which in fact makes the point. All I have said with respect to the relationship between this bill and provincial legislation is that I believe that this bill will make it more difficult for provinces to use their jurisdiction in ways that will reduce access to abortion. I believe the effect of actually having a federal law on the books is a positive one and will be taken into account by the courts.
One of the opinions that was solicited, and I refer the hon. member to it, in fact makes that point. I suggest most of the opinions are worthless because they address things that I have never said. By parodying my views, of course you can solicit whatever opinion you want.
Mr. Ryder makes the point in footnote 14 or 16 of his views, quoting Professor Peter Hogg, who is one of the great authorities on Canadian constitutional law, in a line of authority that culminated in the Westendorp case, which is still good law in Canada. It is a Supreme Court of Canada decision of 1983. He says perhaps in theory the courts should not take into account the existence or absence of a federal law in determining the validity of provincial law, but in practice the case law shows that the presence of a federal law does, in fact, influence the courts in determining the validity of provincial law.
That is the point that I have made. It is a point well founded in the law of Canada, in the 1983 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which has not been departed from by the Supreme Court of Canada. I am quite content to allow the courts to vindicate me in that view because it is a well-founded view. I assign no value whatever to legal opinions which attempt to challenge views that are a parody of what I have said, as opposed to a realistic representation of what I have said.
The hon. member says that 62 per cent of Canadians have said they do not want criminal law in this area. Most Canadians do not understand the division of powers in this country and the limited authority that the federal government has because, in fact, a majority of Canadians have said they would prefer to see some legal framework.
The only constitutional power that we can use to do that is the criminal law power and the criminal law power is a very important power of this Parliament. It enables this Parliament to do some very important things and there are many every-day activities in Canadian society that for some purposes come under the purview of the criminal law power. To caricature that power and to use the term "criminalization" in emotive terms that have nothing to do with the way the law functions, I think is not very helpful in helping Canadians to understand the role of parliamentarians and the effect of legislation.
Of course, we should be doing things that are effective for women and children, but those are not answers to the problem that is before us.
This law attempts to recognize the fact that abortion is characterized in two fundamentally different ways in Canadian society. For people on my side of the issue, a view the hon. member shares, it is fundamentally an equality rights issue, but for other Canadians it is basically a moral issue. It is very difficult to reconcile these two points of view.
This bill attempts to reconcile these two points of view. It is a conciliatory gesture. It says to those great many Canadians, for whom abortion will never be just another issue, that it is an issue we take seriously as a society. At the same time it is a bill that is deeply respectful of the relationship between a woman and her doctor. It is deeply respectful of the professional ethics of the medical profession in Canada. It does not seek to intrude into that relationship or look behind opinions formed by doctors, opinions which they must form to practise ethical medicine under the canons of their own college. It does not seek to look behind those opinions but to recognize them and to provide in those opinions and in a standard of good medical practice, a protection for doctors from any kind of legal sanction.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice indicated some question of morality here and that this
May 24, 1990

was a moral position of her government. For two years in this country, we have had no criminal law on abortion. Has she seen any indication that Canadian women have not behaved with integrity or have not taken this issue very seriously themselves? Does she truly believe that the state knows better than Canadian women, on then-own, when they agonize to make this decision themselves? Does she not respect the morality of Canadian women?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I think that is a foolish question and typical of the way the hon. member tries to characterize questions which bear no relation to what I have actually said.
Many Canadians regard this as a moral issue. It is an issue that is troubling to them. In making a moral balance between the question of ending a pregnancy and the right of a woman to make that choice, I come down very strongly on the right of a woman to make that choice. I recognize that there is a moral balance and a moral dilemma. It is an appropriate function for Parliament to recognize that this is an issue unlike any other in Canadian society.
Women make this decision best. The determination of the health and well being of a women, in the context of medical practice, is one in which the woman's own aspirations play a very significant role. Doctors do not ask their patients to be quiet while figuring out what their situation is. The patient is a fundamental participant in the determination of what is in the best interest of the patient. It is precisely that relationship which is respected in this bill. It is precisely the formation of that opinion which a doctor must form to practise ethical medicine which is not intruded into or looked behind in this bill.
I think it is very sad that the hon. member cannot recognize that this is a troubling issue for many Canadians. It is appropriate in the House to come up with some kind of legislative structure that will pay homage to the concerns of a great many Canadians who send people to the House of Commons and who also have a right to be represented. I believe this bill does so, but not at the expense of the security of the person of Canadian women. That is a value which we have to respect. The Supreme Court of Canada has told us that. We have done that in this bill.
Government Orders
I believe this bill is an honourable accommodation between two fundamentally different ways of characterizing one of the most divisive issues in Canadian society. I am sorry that the hon. member does not see, within her role as a parliamentarian, the obligation to find that common ground. If her party has aspirations ever to be government, she will find that the positions it takes on many issues do not translate well into public policy which will command the support of all Canadians. All Canadians are represented in the House, and require some acknowledgement of their position.


Mr. Friesen:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mean to interrupt, but I just want to announce that there is agreement among the parties that the debate will continue on through the lunch hour.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, the motions to amend the bill, which we all know failed last night, were largely an attempt to improve the bill in the interest of protecting the most defenceless, smallest, and weakest members of our society, the prebom.
Abortion kills a human being. This bill, if passed, is a licence to kill human beings. It does not matter that the human being is in its early stages of development. What matters is that this bill, if passed, will permit open season on defenceless human beings.
The dispute lies in whether it is right or wrong to kill defenceless human beings. In attempting to explain then-position on the abortion issue, civil leaders frequently speak of not wanting to impose their morality on others. Let me remind them that all civil law involves the imposition of someone's moral principles on someone else, including those who do not agree with them and on those who believe they should be exempt from those rules.
The Criminal Code prohibits rape, theft, arson, and many other things. Obviously the rapist, the thief, and the arsonist do not subscribe to the Criminal Code's principles. However, no sensible person would suggest that these offences should be removed from the Criminal Code because they impose someone else's morality.
The civilization of a society can be judged best by how it treats its most defenceless members. Compassion dictates that we protect children in the womb and, just as importantly, provide real and substantial help to their mothers. That is what a civilized society would do. Distressed pregnant women need and deserve and have

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
a right to the assistance required to help them give life and support to their children, as much before as after birth. This is an obligation which society must address.
Compromise on abortion means legalizing the deaths of some unborn children. We would not legalize the rape of some women or the abuse of some children. Neither is the murder of some victims acceptable.
The true test of an advanced civilization, which we purport to be, is how society treats those in the dawn of life, the margins of life, and the twilight of life. There is no place in our society for select living and select dying.
In general, should Bill C-43 become law, access to abortion will be even easier and quicker than under the 1969 law which permitted the killing of over a million and a half prebom children in the country. This bill will remove the few restrictions that the 1969 law had imposed and, regardless of how one looks at it, Bill C-43 is nothing more than abortion on demand. Anyone who thinks otherwise either has not read the bill or refuses to believe what history has taught us.
Instead of approval from a therapeutic abortion committee, the opinion of only one doctor will suffice and an abortion may be performed by anyone under his or her supervision. Instead of being restricted to hospitals, abortions may be carried out anywhere: doctors' offices, clinics, homes.
Even the pretence of needing a reason or an indication, as was previously required in requesting an abortion, has now been removed by permitting abortion for physical, mental, and psychological reasons, which may even include economic and social factors.
Bill C-43 is the worst gestational law possible in that it places absolutely no time limit on when an abortion can be performed.
Let me quote the last sentence from the 1974 book, Morality and Law in Canadian Politics:
For a society to have many illegal abortions is no doubt a very serious
situation. It will be very difficult to stop them. But to legalize abortions
is to corrupt the law and, thereby, ultimately to corrupt society. It will
prove far more difficult to stop that corruption than it will be to stop
illegal abortions.
A child on the verge of being bom is developmentally indistinguishable from a newborn infant. The mere fact that the unborn child is inside someone else's body does not imply that it is not a person. If it is not a person at this stage, presumably the reason is that it is still physically dependent on the mother. But if personhood is diminished in this way, the matter of dependence being the determinant, then the personhood of seriously ill people on life-support systems would come into serious question, as would the personhood of other seriously dependent or handicapped persons.
Surely, a woman's right to have control over her own body should not be extended to the level at which it gives the mother the right to terminate the life of someone else.
We get upset and very disturbed when we read about or watch on TV the terrible atrocities that go on almost daily in our society. The mass killings of a group of students recently in Montreal is an example, as are the needless slayings of innocent people, young and old in our society. These things prompt us to ask what is wrong in our society. Why is there this lack of respect for life in our society? Are we growing immune and becoming more accepting to these indignities that we cause one another? The answer is yes. If Bill C-43, which will allow abortion on demand, becomes law, it will be a major setback for our society which is attempting to present itself as a highly civilized nation.
In closing, what I am asking for is a new approach to something that is very old. If we take away life as a basic right, then all other rights that we would extend to the foetus are meaningless. Why not reject this proposed law in favour of a family policy that is positive? That policy would see the family elevated above every other social unit or organization as being the ultimate unit, the one of prime importance if we are going to advance as a society on the world scene.
Canada has an opportunity to show leadership. Forget about Party differences. What I am proposing is developing an attitude that will respect the family and will transcend all petty things such as party lines and differ-

ences. I think if we permit ourselves we could elevate our purposes and, for once, do something because it is right, although it may not be popular in all quarters.
Our obligation as human beings is to protect the lives of others who are in no position to protect themselves. The inconvenience that one life may cause to another is not a justifiable reason for the dominant one to discontinue the life of the innocent one.
I ask hon. members from all sides, if they are not sure what position to take, if they have not thought it through, or if for one reason or another they cannot make up their minds, to vote for life. Come down on the side of human dignity. Be a promoter of life. Defeat this bill and ask the government to come up with a new bill with its soul purpose being to protect life. To vote in favour of this bill as it is now is so final. All we are saying is give life a chance.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the hon. member how he thinks criminalizing abortion, making women and/or doctors criminals, will possibly deal with abortions taking place?
He will remember, prior to any criminal provisions with regard to abortion, that abortions were generally unsafe, back-street operations, essentially for poor women, and that rich women could always find appropriate doctors to perform abortions, here or elsewhere.
Perhaps the hon. member could deal with that one point. If the point is that we should try to reduce the number of abortions, how does he feel that criminalizing the matter would achieve that, bearing in mind that past practice and history would not substantiate any suggestion that that would happen?
Would there not be a greater likelihood of success in reducing the number of abortions if we addressed concerns such as child care, effective education and effective contraception, and essentially give women an opportunity to see their way clear to raising children in other than poverty? He knows as well as we do that one in four Canadian children is raised in poverty.
The main point is, how does he feel criminalizing women and criminalizing doctors could possibly deal with the question of abortion?
Government Orders


Jim Jordan: Well, it is not a question of criminalizing women and doctors. Members of his party seem to be presenting themselves as the social conscience of the world and not seeing that the basic need is to create conditions in this country-we are a rich country-in which those conditions would not exist that require abortions.
If it is through poverty, let us correct that. If it is through poor housing, let us correct that. If it is through lack of education, let us correct that. But if we are going to start with the assumption that this is going to go on and we have no intention of trying to jar society into elevating its sights at all, how are we ever going to address the problem?
I know abortions have gone on and probably will continue to go on. But I do not think that should be the base from which to start to improve conditions under which abortions go on. Let us correct the social conditions that create the need for women to have abortions in this country.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I am sure no one in the House would disagree with the sentiment presented by the hon. member for Leeds- Grenville that society should be doing more for families and for children.
I remind him that in the last 20 or 30 years we have had deindexing of family allowances, a reduction in the proportion of family income that is free from income tax for raising children, and an inadequacy of social services for the increasing number of single-parent families, most of them headed by women. Society has failed miserably. Governments all across the country, federal and provincial, and the two main parties that have been in power federally have not addressed that. In fact, they have exacerbated the problem.
Can he perhaps explain why there has not been emphasis on correcting those problems, rather than attempting to portray the difficulty, so-called, as one of being a moral issue when there are social and economic factors to it? Among those economic and social factors, the experiment that has existed for the last year and a half or two years where women and doctors were free to make these decisions does seem to indicate that they were conducting themselves appropriately.
I wonder if he could tie those two factors together and explain why?

May 24, 1990
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: A very short comment from the hon. member. The time has expired.


Jim Jordan: If you are asking me to defend the record of previous governments, regardless of politics, I would not be prepared to do that. There have been some horrible examples, perhaps with good intentions, of trying to create the social climate that I am proposing should be created, so that women are not put in a position where their only alternative, seemingly, is to have an abortion. I think that indicates a preposterous kind of economy. We have a great economy in this country, if we wanted to direct it in the right fashion. There seems to be a tendency to have all kinds of money for certain programs but the one that is most basic, the protection of human life, seems to be the one that gives way whenever there is any kind of a crunch.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The time for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate with the hon. member for York West.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, the question of abortion is a very emotional and complex one, one that is so fundamental that it continues to occupy this House and this country.
It is complex and fundamental because it incorporates a number of different overtones, whether they be moral, religious, social, or philosophical. It also incorporates a debate between individual rights, in this case of women, versus collective rights of a family, of a society. Finally, important among those elements are the rights of the unborn.
This is the third occasion I have participated in a debate on the matter of abortion. I spoke in the second reading debate of Bill C-43 a few months ago. In the last Parliament, I also participated in the debate on the number of various options offered to the House of Commons. At that time, I certainly was in favour of the pro-life option.
I wish to say again today that there are three exceptions that I feel very strongly about that were not incorporated in the official pro-life option; where an abortion was performed if the life of the mother was seriously endangered, where the pregnancy was the result of a rape, and where the pregnancy was the result of incest.
I realize that in some of those cases the numbers are few, but nonetheless we have to legislate for all possible and potential possibilities. Therefore, in my judgment, those exceptions are certainly real and must be addressed. I feel very passionately about them.
I also voted against second reading of Bill C-43, mainly because the legislation as drafted is essentially abortion on demand. The law would make it very easy and very open-ended for most women in this country to obtain an abortion; open-ended for any health reason, which is loosely defined; open-ended for any medical practitioner to approve the abortion; open-ended for ending a pregnancy at any stage. The fundamental question that I asked myself during second reading and I continue to ask myself now at third reading is, what is the difference between this piece of legislation, and abortion on demand, or no legislation at all?
There was no attempt to define the rights of the unborn, the rights of the foetus, which is a very central dilemma that we as a Parliament in 1990 are supposed to resolve. Previous Supreme Court decisions challenged Parliament to come to grips with the question of the rights of the unborn, and at what point in the pregnancy do we have the right as a society and as legislators to protect that life.
It seems to me that this piece of legislation skated away completely from that challenge, from toiling with that dilemma so that we can somehow as legislators and as a country come to grips with that very moral question.
What alternative or encouragement through legislation or programs did this Parliament and government provide or offer those women in Canada who may have wanted to stop their pregnancy through abortion?
Are we to accept that an unwanted pregnancy must equal an unwanted child? I am not prepared to accept that. Must we accept that somehow an unwanted pregnancy must hurt a woman or stop her career or penalize her because there are no structural elements or programs to allow for that option? I do not buy that.
Are we to say that we should not be encouraging the gift of adoption for those who unfortunately cannot have children and who would love to know the feeling of parenthood but who have to go through red tape abroad in order to bring in an adopted child because there are

May 24, 1990

not enough children in this country to adopt. I am not prepared to accept that.
Those were some of the challenges for me that were inherent in the abortion debate. People are looking to this Chamber and this government to resolve these dilemmas. We chose to exclude the most difficult variables and deal with those which are perhaps easier to deal with at this particular junction.
I voted against the bill at second reading because in my opinion and in the opinion of many constituents of York West, whom I have the honour to represent, the legislation was bad legislation. I thought that it was so seriously flawed that it had to be sent to committee so that it could be amended to make it a better bill.
I voted against this bill because the government signalled very early in the debate that it would not permit any amendments, that not one comma would be changed. Therefore, I was not prepared to put my feelings aside in the hope that a committee would come up with amendments that would somehow correct the flaws and right the wrongs.
There were many individuals who wanted the pro-life option who were prepared to vote in favour at second reading in the hope that some amendments would see the light of day. We found out that the committee experience was a different story. We also found out last night about that story when all amendments were defeated, that the so-called free vote of my friends and colleagues on the opposite side was a three-line whip to ensure that all members on the government side supported the piece of legislation unchanged.
In my judgment, the defeat of those amendments was the defeat of any possibility that we would have legislation in this country that would try, on the one hand, to protect the unborn and, on the other hand, encourage alternatives to the abortion option and facilitate this option by supporting women in Canada with mechanisms that would enable them to continue with the pregnancy without any cost to their personal being.
Therefore, I return to the principle of my debate at second reading. What is the difference between this piece of legislation and abortion on demand? What is the message that we are transmitting through this bill to a
Government Orders
society at large, above and beyond the elements surrounding the question of abortion?
I believe that this bill has failed the country badly. I believe that this piece of legislation is morally bankrupt and does not speak to or embrace any set of values that a civilized society with concern for the multifaceted elements of this debate should have had and obtained. That is the first message it sends out.
Second, I believe that this debate has failed in addressing the inherent variables that were at play in the question of abortion. We chose to exclude many variables that are pressing and that we think have gone away or have been resolved, because we chose to ignore them.
Third, this debate and this legislation have failed to come to grips with the rights of the unborn. For me, this bill was not worth supporting at second reading. It is not worth supporting at third reading. Instead of participating in a debate over a piece of legislation that has very little substance and is more of charade than anything else, I believe that parliament should have come to grips with a piece of legislation that should have had the courage and the integrity to address all the elements in the abortion debate; not some, but all of them.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, yesterday I spoke against the very restrictive and punitive criminal measures that were presented in this House by men who in my view wanted to punish severely women and doctors who have performed abortions.
As I listened to the debate I became more and more upset. It was very difficult to try and be sensitive to why members were feeling this way and to respect then-different views, which are very different from my own. I became very upset and very angry, because it seemed to me that the principles and the policies that were advocated in these extreme amendments were akin to the dreadful situation that has existed for some time in Romania, which we learned about recently, where women have been treated as handmaidens of the state and forced to become baby factories. That is not a nice term, but that is in fact what was happening. Unwanted children, as a result, were neglected and abused. We remember those frightening and sickening pictures on TV of children in institutions where they were left to die or vegetate.

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
I am sure that many women who would not go through with pregnancies, as the state required, died or were permanently damaged from illegal or self-induced abortions. It was really sickening.
I was extremely disappointed in many of the Liberal MPs, particularly, for supporting these amendments. I expected more to come from the other party. The majority of people who stood up time after time to support those amendments were from the Liberal caucus. I was sickened that they and Canadians who support this position would support such punitive measures in the name of life. I will not pursue this point, because I am sure we have different views on it, but that is the way it seemed to me and it was very sickening and depressing. Fortunately all these amendments were voted down by members from all parties.
I was particularly moved by the remarks of the member from the eastern Arctic. He was telling us about the culture and the caring of the Inuit communities where children belong to the whole community, where pregnant women are treated with great care and the children can be adopted in a very positive way by other people and still share relationships with their natural parents. This was a very moving statement and an example of the kind of caring community I wish we could somehow recreate in our southern urban communities. We have much to learn.
Today I want to try to be more positive in speaking on this final third reading of Bill C-43. Last November 22,1 outlined my objections to the bill in considerable detail and tried to present positive alternatives we in this party see which would allow personal reproductive choice, would help to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and would provide support for parents and children in a caring society.
I want to summarize once again at third reading why we in the New Democratic Party oppose Bill C-43 and why I personally will be voting against it.
First, there is no need for a bill that will recriminalize abortion. It just is not needed, and the last two years have shown this. We know that this bill attempts to be a compromise. Some would like it to have tougher sanctions, but the sanctions under the Criminal Code affect both women and doctors, and this really is not necessary.
If we look at what has happened since the Supreme Court decision in the Morgentaler case over two years ago which struck down the previous abortion law, women and doctors have been left to make their own private decisions concerning abortion. I think this has worked well. There is no evidence that this has been abused or irresponsible.
The main concern that continues is that access is limited across the country, particularly in the Atlantic region and in rural and remote areas. This bill will not extend that access. In fact it will further restrict access, and I will come back to this point later.
The rate of abortions has not risen over the last two years. The kind of openness and the privacy of this access to abortion mean that a whole range of services has been offered in clinics such as Every Woman's Clinic in Vancouver, which has offered a first-rate service despite the protests that continue outside its doors. Hospitals also have been able to proceed without those cumbersome and delaying committees that formerly were a legal necessity.
Second, as we have said over and over again women can be trusted. As we have said over and over again- and the women of Canada have said it- this is insulting to women. It says that the state will tell a woman what she should do about plans for her own reproductive choice and if and when she should have a family despite what her conditions and her situation are.
Abortion is not used as a method of birth control. I have not personally met anyone who is in favour of abortion. I must say that I really wish, when referring to those who support the so-called choice position, people would not interpret this as a pro-abortion position. It certainly is not.
If a woman has to make a very difficult decision on the question of abortion she should be able to speak with counsellors, as she does now under the present situation, and consult with her doctor, but only she can and should have the right to make the final decision. After all, she is the one who has to care for the child, often without the support of a partner, and only she knows the real situation in her case.
May 24, 1990

No law can make this decision for her. This is what this bill is doing. It is saying that the state will interfere, that the state will impose the kind of situation, and that the state will also have criminal sanctions against women and doctors.
As the minister herself said this morning, women and doctors are responsible. Eighty-nine per cent of abortions are in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Both women and doctors know, if the difficult decision of having an abortion is what they conclude is right for them, that this must be done long before a foetus is viable.
I should not have to say this, but I want to stress that women do have rights in this country. We are not in Romania. We no longer are chattels of men or chattels of the state. Surely everyone in the House appreciates this fact.
Women do not have to be told what to do. They can make their own decisions, particularly on this all-important decision of child birth and pregnancy.
Our rights have been spelled out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was recognized by the Supreme Court when it declared that the former abortion law was unconstitutional. As the minister said this morning, it was judged to be "a violation of the security of the person and of fundamental justice". The courts in the Daigle case also recognized a woman's right to make her own independent decision about abortion and denied the injunction of a boyfriend who tried to prevent this for very questionable reasons.
An abortion should be treated as a private medical procedure, as it is now, performed by qualified persons under medical regulations in safe conditions. Access will be restricted by this bill. We know that anxious, desperate women who may fear that they will not qualify for an abortion under the restrictions imposed, or who sense that their doctors are reluctant to get into any legal complications under Bill C-43, will find another way of having an abortion. It is not going to stop abortions.
History shows repeatedly that legal prohibitions and criminal sanctions do not stop unwanted pregnancies or abortions that result. The experience in Italy showed that when it had the toughest possible law, there was the highest incidence of abortions and deaths. Since there has been a more liberal policy, this rate has gone down.
Government Orders
Undoubtedly this bill will result in an increase in self-induced abortions and illegal back street abortions which are so dangerous, as well as being illegal.
Doctors also can be trusted. Physicians do not need to have punitive criminal laws to overrule their medical judgments. They operate under professional ethics and under provincial regulations. Good doctors will take cognizance of the total person: her needs and desires as well as health factors, her family, and her economic situation. He or she will respect the right of a woman patient to make her own decision as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.
This bill imposes a whole new situation. I am sure it will intimidate doctors. We already had an indication of this point. The Canadian Medical Association is veiy much opposed to recriminalizing abortion. It has stated the following:
Our figures indicate that approximately 800 of the 45,000 physicians in the CMA perform abortions. Approximately 325 perform the majority of abortions. We understand that a significant majority of physicians providing abortion services would seriously re-evaluate their position.
That is, if this law is imposed. It is quite easy to understand why. As I said, the bill will intimidate doctors. It limits legal abortions to only situations where the continuation of a pregnancy would threaten a woman's physical, psychological or mental health.
There were some medical doctors who said in the House yesterday that they want to have "health" interpreted very, very narrowly rather than having the UN definition of it. I am sure that if they are faced with a possible legal challenge they are not going to be willing to take a risk. It is going to be very difficult for clinics to hire physicians if they are going to be threatened with two years in prison and costly legal charges.
This means that access for women will be seriously limited. The CMA has pointed this out. It is also grossly unfair and insulting to doctors who can make their own judgment on this matter. Doctors prefer to work under medical rather than criminal legislation and regulations.
I would now like to talk about alternatives to Bill C-43. As I have said many times, we must lessen the need for abortions. I know of no one who favours abortion. It is far preferable to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Why has the federal government then not addressed this question as its priority? Why have we had to spend so much time on this negative, punitive bill and

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
all the public furore it has created when the need for abortions could be done away with if the government would only put an emphasis on finding that solution?
It is extremely important, first, that men take a much greater responsibility for birth control and family planning. We have to change our culture in this respect. We must promote male contraceptives. Men have to see and accept that it is their responsibility. They contribute to the need for abortions and they must prevent unwanted pregnancies. They cannot just leave it to women, which seems to have been the old way of thinking in so much of our culture.
Young people, from childhood, must learn healthy sexuality. As adolescents they must have open discussions of sexual relations, pregnancies and contraception, and it should be done in schools openly. We need youth clinics and peer group discussions. We do not want contraception to be associated only with the prevention of AIDS, although this is very important. It should also be taught as part of a positive family planning and family life education program.
This is why the government must provide increased funding for school programs, for public education, and particularly for public media such as TV. It must especially reinstate and increase funding for planned parenthood associations. They have expertise in all of these areas. They are not just going to go out and promote abortions as one alternative.
Abortion is a symptom of our societal inadequacies. It is really a sign of our failure. This bill is the extreme negative way of dealing with this failure. We need prevention, but we also need many more supports for both fathers and mothers and for their children. Children and parents need programs to ensure their economic and emotional security. They must have this kind of security to plan for, bear and raise children. This is not always easy in the very competitive, costly society in which we live.
We must end child poverty and offer many more supports and opportunities for single mothers or fathers. This should be a government priority for funding and a first priority in our social policy.
It is deplorable and unconscionable that this government continues to ignore the urgent need for quality, affordable child care despite two task forces, constant presentations from witnesses across this country and repeated promises to introduce a national child care program. This is unconscionable.
We also need to extend parental leave and encourage family benefits for working parents. Employers should contribute to this and the government could start as a federal employer, another thing it is neglecting.
Immigrant parents must have language instruction and support programs to encourage their easy settlement into a new country, particularly women who often do not get the same opportunities because they are rearing children. They need opportunities for their children, including child care, as well as employment for themselves.
There are many things that we need to do to achieve a caring society, a society where people are valued and respected, where there is opportunity for people-women, men, young people and children-to develop their full potential, where they are allowed to determine their own future and make their own choices, not on only this question of reproductive choice but on all matters that affect them. We particularly want a society where children are wanted and loved, where they are nourished by parents or by alternate parents, by extended families and by a caring community.
I am pessimistic but I hope that there will be support to defeat this bill and I hope that the government and all of us in this House and across the country will work for these goals.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, the member and I share the wish that the bill be defeated, although for very opposite and polarized views. I respect the member's full right to explain her views.
In a previous Supreme Court ruling one of the female judges on the bench wrote, in her own personal decision, that Parliament should be debating and challenging itself to come to grips with the rights of the unborn. She said in her decision that she felt that at some point in the pregnancy the right of the foetus becomes paramount.
May 24, 1990

I know that the hon. member has spoken at great length about the paramountcy of trying to cope with the woman in this debate of pregnancy and abortion, as we should. However, could she perhaps cast her mind on that decision written by a woman on our Supreme Court bench and explain to Parliament her opinion of the right of the foetus, at some stage in the pregnancy, becoming paramount over some other factors.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I think that is a very important question. Of course, the member is referring to the comments of Justice Bertha Wilson. If he read the full judgment he would know that it was this judge who spoke so strongly on the question of the rights of women and the need for them to not be controlled by the state.
I do not recall that Bertha Wilson used the term "should". If I recall correctly, she raised the question in a very thoughtful and important way on the rights of women, and she certainly gave that paramountcy in the early stages of pregnancy, and also raised the question of rights of the foetus. She talked about the possibility of time limits.
Let us not forget that that was two years ago. I would be very interested in what her position might be today having consideration for what has happened over the last two years. She did not direct Parliament at all, she offered that as one question for Parliament to struggle with.
I would point out to the member that the minister said this morning, and our figures would certainly substantiate this, that 89 per cent of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. That is certainly the period when Bertha Wilson herself said that the woman's rights should be predominant. And although you cannot put an exact timing on it, it could perhaps go up to 20 weeks.
I would think that those cases where the abortion is done a little later would predominantly be cases of teenagers, adolescents. I have known young children, actually, in their early teens, who were not aware that they were pregnant until later. That is another very deep concern that we have.
I cannot speak for Bertha Wilson, but I do not think she suggested that Bill C-43 was the answer to the balance of rights.
Government Orders


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, I listened to and have read the comments the member for Vancouver East made yesterday on the report stage of the bill. I have to say that I am a little disturbed at what I believe to be the unnecessary, overt partisanship that she exhibited in her remarks today. Members on this side of the House have been freed to vote as they see fit on this legislation. I have carefully followed the debate in the House through all stages and have found that there has been a marked absence of partisanship on this issue. It is a fundamental issue and many members feel very differently on it. I think the NDP caucus is voting as a party on this and that is fine, as long as those members want to do that.
Members on our side have varying views on this very fundamental issue. Yet the member started her remarks today by taking a wide partisan swipe at some people who voted for amendments, saying that she was absolutely sickened by that. I am on a particular side of this debate, but I would hope the hon. member would read my comments on second reading of the bill, because I tried my very best, as I think most people did, to be conscious and respectful of points of view other than the ones that we individually hold. I have listened to her position, which she has articulated very carefully and very well.
I am concerned with some of the comments that she made today and, in particular, comments that she made yesterday about those members of the House who were supporting or putting forward some of the amendments which were debated yesterday. She said:
It is sickening to know that there are people in Canada, and members in this House, who support these resolutions, who want to impose the kind of inhumane policies that we saw in Romania where women were forced to have babies and these babies were neglected and abused.
That is a very strong comment which perhaps is unwarranted, knowing the spirit and the complexity of the debate that is at hand. I would certainly hope that no one who holds a point of view contrary to hers would be so loose in condemnation of her point of view.
I would like the hon. member to comment on that. I would hope that she did not mean to put that particular light on all members who have a different point of view than her on the resolutions that we voted on last night.

May 24, 1990
Government Orders


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, the member raises two points. First, he says that I am partisan. I think that is probably true for a reason, although I hope I am expressing this as a person who cares very deeply for the women of Canada and the whole question of abortion.
The reason I mentioned that I was surprised that so many Liberals took what I consider to be an anti-choice stance-I do not like to use those terms but I guess everybody is using them-is that the member's party is aspiring to be the next government. So are we, of course. I think it is very important that the women and men of Canada know what the Liberal Party position is on abortion, and I take it that there is no position. There is a chance, God forbid, that the Liberals will be in government in the not-too-distant future. If this happens, what is going to be the policy then? What kind of criminal sanctions are we going to have at that time? Can women expect that the new government will be more progressive than the present government and will rescind this recriminalization of abortion that is represented in this bill? I do not think so. I think it is very important that people in Canada know what they are in for.
I do apologize to my colleagues if I personally insulted them yesterday. I was feeling very, very upset, to tell the truth. I do not like to criticize people personally because they have the right to their views, even though I get very upset at what those views are.
I would like to pay tribute to a number of the Conservative members, women in particular. In the debate on this issue a year or two ago, some of them spoke so movingly. Several of them said they were Catholics and they would never have an abortion, as many of us would not. But they felt so strongly for women who were in very desperate situations and had no alternatives. They respected their decision and their right to make that decision. I wanted to mention that because I know there are some very caring people on all sides of the House, but I was very disappointed that there were not more of them in the Liberal caucus.
I do respect peoples' right to have a different opinion, even though I do not respect those opinions that are, in my view, anti-women. I would urge members to listen again to what the member from the eastern Arctic said yesterday. To paraphrase it, he said: "If men were able to bear children, I do not think we would have this bill".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, I must interrupt the hon. member. The time for question and comments has now expired. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I have been participating in debate on this issue for about 15 years.
I want to begin by thanking the Prime Minister for exercising leadership on this issue last summer when the country was tom by what we saw on television. He determined then that the government would introduce legislation and that Parliament would make a decision. I want to thank him personally for taking that leadership and exercising that initiative.
In these past 15 years there has been an emotional tug of war in our land between what is right and what is wrong. As that emotional tug of war developed, the confusion increased as to what is right and what is wrong. It brings to mind the famous lines by that great Irish poet, W.B. Yates, who said, about 55 years ago:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.
Yates was being very prophetic about the days in which we are living, particularly on this issue.
We are living in a period of a redefinition of norms. All through civilization there has been an aspiration for freedom which has been the norm. But that freedom was always integrated with our relationship with our fellow human beings. It was never seen as individual islands of freedom, but rather communities of freedom. Today we are facing a redefinition of that term and it is becoming increasingly individualistic, narcissistic, and egocentric, as though the rights of the other person do not matter as long as my own freedom is preserved.
There has always been a norm about the sanctity of life. Strangely enough now, with the increasing knowledge that science has given us, there are other views regarding the sanctity of life. Is it not strange that the planet and all of life on the planet now is sacred and we are doing everything we can to preserve the planet, but
May 24, 1990

we want to take the opposite view when it conies to the life of the unborn? It is strangely ironic.
In Vancouver last winter there was a bizarre theatre. A young man was going to drop a stone or brick on a rat and there was public outrage about that demonstration in the name of art, as there should have been. But at the same time, bystanders were asked if they were pro-life and they said no. You would almost believe, as one writer put it, that society was pro-rat but not pro-life. We are destroying that norm.
We are seeing also the disintegration of the moral leadership of institutional influence. In the midst of the redefinition and a growing moral confusion about what is right, we need a reference point. Since the institutions are not fulfilling their functions in instructing us on what is right and wrong, as they did at one time, we do need moral reference points and that has seemingly been left to the law.
We need the law. Without that, society cannot function in a coherent way. For this coherence we must have dependable responses to one another. We must be able to depend on our responses to each other.
I would say that the first universal principle accepted around the world is the preservation of life. That is a universal principle accepted in all societies. There is a dependable group response to that principle everywhere. Societies have as their first goal the preservation of life, but this is now clashing with personal agendas.
We heard in committee that 95 per cent of abortions are performed for socioeconomic reasons. Regardless of how that is defined, it comes down to personal agendas clashing with the right of the unborn and the defenceless to life. To preserve self-will we want to dispose of a defenceless life. But to do that and still preserve our conscience, we have to rewrite the definitions.
Rather than talk of the unborn child, we want to talk about a foetus. That becomes a little less personal and easier to deal with. We can destroy the norm that way. We do not want to talk about an abortion. We want to talk about terminating a pregnancy, or evacuating the womb. That becomes less personal, less offensive, easier to handle.
Government Orders
The whole focus and goal is to disintegrate the norms that have governed our society throughout the centuries. It is the self-will and the personal agendas that we have established that are doing this. Yet, we still want to cling to the notion that there is respect for life at any stage.
The second erosion is the institutional influence on moral issues. There is a confusion of positions in spite of empirical evidence regarding all this. Science is telling us so much about life.
We had before the committee a world renowned geneticist who said the following:
Using Jeffrey's method, we can determine the bar code for each human being. It has been shown that there is a unique code for each human being. One person cannot be mistaken for another. From the moment of fertilization, every human being has his or her unique bar code. Using another method, the in-vitro polymerization of DNA, we can study the bar code in a single cell.
We thus have an experiment that proves that each human being is unique and therefore irreplaceable, from the moment of fertilization on. The only difference between the genetic bar code which defines each of us and the bar codes we find in the supermarket is that when we run the item over the optical character reader in the supermarket, the bar code tells the computer how much the item costs. The genetic bar code does not show the price of a human being. Science tells us that each human being is priceless.
That is what science tells us.
But then we heard from a woman from one of the leading churches in our society in Canada, with one of the largest denominations, who said:
I did not miscarry a person, I miscarried something that looked rather like a mass of liver. That sounds crude, but it was not a person physically, and all women know in their hearts that this is so.
On the one hand, science gives us the empirical evidence that every person is unique and priceless. On the other hand, a woman from the church says it looks rather like a mass of liver.
The geneticist went on to say:
I know that the embtyo, before becoming a foetus, was already that same being, and I know that you and I too were once 2.5-cm beings in our mothers' wombs.
In other words, what we have learned from genetics and embryology, is that the Tom Thumb story, the story of the man who is notallerthanathumb, is not an old wives'tale. It is the truth. It is a very factual story-it is biologically absurd to imagine that you can measure human dignity by the size of the body. I have never measured the dignity of a human being in kilograms or centimetres. Only one parameter can be used for measurement: is it a member of our

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
species-and then it deserves respect whatever its colour, size or state
of health-or is it a member of another species? Ido not hold the same
respect for a mouse foetus as for a human foetus.
That is what science tells us.
But the Canadian Medical Association, which ought to be protecting our values, stated that "the CMA is in fact in the process of preparing a position paper on the status of the human foetus".
The institutions that ought to be protecting and educating our values are no longer the guidance mechanisms we need to make moral decisions. When we cannot trust the institutions, then there has to be a law that gives us some guidance as to the ultimate-the furthest we can go in our behaviour. We do not have to go that far, but there has to be a guidance mechanism.
Bill C-43 is an attempt to provide that. Basically, Bill C-43 says that life is important, it is sacred from the beginning, and it deserves protection. The Supreme Court has said that there are justifiable limits of choice and that society has a legitimate interest in the welfare of the defenceless or the foetus.
But there are exceptions, and here is where the avenue of freedom lies in the bill. I want to say this with some caution. This is important. The ability to choose is important in our society if we want to be unique beings. It is our ability to choose that defines our uniqueness. The freedom of choice determines moral growth or moral deterioration. If we remove the freedom, we begin to deteriorate. Choice must be an integral part of our society.
The exceptions and the definitions of "health" introduce an incredible risk in this legislation because they introduce the freedom to choose, to do right or to do wrong. The fact is people do make wrong choices. I am appalled at the wrong choices we are able to make. When we do make wrong choices, we must know that we are making wrong choices. Unless there is a law, we have no way of measuring whether we are right or wrong. This is the moral morass in which society will be if we have no law. The ten commandments were given to prevent people from doing wrong, to let them know when they were in danger of doing wrong.
The failure of the so-called pro-choice concept is not in the freedom to choose-and we respect the freedom to choose-but it is their desire to choose in the absence
of any reference points of what is right or wrong. There is nothing to guide them, they want no law, so people will never know if they are doing right or wrong.
We are not talking about the arrangement of potted plants, or how to arrange the books on a shelf, or whether to get rid of a used car or not, we are talking about human life. We have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt, are we right or are we wrong? In the absence of moral guidance systems, which have deteriorated over the years, we need a law. It is not good enough to say, "If this law is not perfect then there should be no law". We need a law. That law has to define the value of human life.
There will be some patients who will exaggerate then-health problems in order to get an abortion. There will be some doctors who will exaggerate the diagnosis in order to provide an abortion. I think that that is a fact of life. We cannot have the freedom to do right without the opportunity to do wrong. That is the risk in our society. The alternative is a state sponsored morality. You cannot have the option to do right without the opportunity of doing wrong.
Bill C-43 sets the standard around which people must make conscious decisions and deliberate choices about what is right and wrong. What the bill does is establish the value of human life from the very beginning. Abortion, it says, is wrong. It is a criminal offence to provide an abortion because human life is important from the beginning. That is what Bill C-43 does.
At the same time, we cannot stop there because the law is not enough to give us a moral guidance system. We have to rebuild the laws of institutions that once gave us that guidance. I think churches have to re-examine their instructional system to teach people how to come to grips with right and wrong. The Canadian Medical Association and all other institutions, such as universities, must have a code of ethics consistent with the universal norms that say life is sacred in all forms and at all times. We have to get these institutions to rebuild a moral framework which will help people to make individual choices that will enhance their own personal morality.
The law sets the limits of morality that should control our behaviour. It should control that behaviour long before we reach those limits. Therefore, we must rebuild a moral support system superior to the law that will help

May 24, 1990

us all to be more complete human beings capable of making moral decisions.
Bill C-43 is a balance, which establishes the right of the human being to exist from the moment of conception, and tries to introduce and reintroduce the notion that we all have a right to be. People must make a choice about their own integrity and morality based upon a code of ethics that has a universal norm built into it. Then we can go on to be the kind of people we ought to be.
We have lived in the kind of a world that W. B. Years prophesized would come, that there would be anarchy and,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.
It is not acceptable that Canadians should tolerate 80,000 abortions a year. It is not acceptable that we should have such disdain for human life. It is not acceptable that we should reduce human sexuality to a mere biological coupling without any coherent relationship between the two parties. It is not acceptable to live that way.
This bill is the threshold of what we can do as a society in order to build the kind of moral framework that will help our people to decide the moral issues that influence their lives in a way that is acceptable to all and preserves the right of freedom.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, and I hope you will be able to perform these duties for several years or at least several months.
The bill on abortion before the House today is not an easy subject to discuss, and it is with some trepidation that I rise in the House to take part in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, the options in this debate have been made clear over many months. The bill we are discussing in this debate has been before the House for some time and many of us, as members of Parliament, have had the
Government Orders
opportunity to express our views on this issue over an extended period.
In June, 1988, shortly after my nomination as a candidate in the election for this House, I was asked for my views on this very important subject. I gave those views forthrightly, openly and honestly whenever I was asked, notwithstanding my knowledge that the views would be unpopular in some quarters throughout my riding and indeed throughout the country where they were promulgated. Nevertheless, I felt it was my duty as a candidate to inform the electorate of Kingston and the Islands in particular, as to what I thought on this issue and I did so.
Bill C-43, now before the House, comes close to what I said would be my preferred legislation. It is not the same, it is not identical, and in a way it is a disappointment, but nevertheless the bill is close to what I thought was a reasonable attempt to deal with an issue that is extremely difficult.
I indicated to the press in my riding shortly after the bill was introduced last November that I would support this legislation through all stages, assuming that no amendments could be made. I indicated I would seek amendments to the bill. These amendments have been considered and rejected by the House and, somewhat as expected, this bill has come through this debate at third reading without any amendments. The choice that we face today as members of Parliament is to accept or reject this particular bill that is now before us and no other.
I have indicated in discussing my views on this subject-I have indicated this freely in my riding when asked-that my opinions are shaped by my experience as a lawyer. They are shaped by my training in legal matters and in jurisprudence. I want to say at the outset that while that training has shaped my views on the subject, it is not the sole criterion by which I weigh the issue of abortion and on which I made my decision to support this particular legislation.
The bill is a balancing of rights. That is really what this debate on abortion is all about. We are balancing on the one hand the rights of a woman and on the other hand the rights of an unborn child or a foetus.

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
I want to state at the outset that I firmly believe in the rights of the woman. I think that the question of her right to make a decision or a conscious choice is paramount and must remain paramount.
I know there is disagreement on this view with some of my colleagues and the public, but the woman who is living and breathing deserves all the protection the law can afford. I believe this bill does exactly that. I believe the Supreme Court cases, Morgentaler and others, have reflected this, but the foetus also has rights. Those rights are undefined in our law. The bill does not define those rights but does give some protection.
The rights of the foetus must increase as the birth date gets closer. I believe the bill recognizes that, perhaps not to the extent that many would prefer, and perhaps not to the extent that I would prefer, but it does recognize it in that it requires a doctor's consent for an abortion. The limited value of that consent in the early stages of pregnancy is well recognized.
Members of this House who have spoken eloquently on the pro-life side said that this bill gives away everything. In the early stages, it may. The pro-choice groups on the other hand argue that it does not. Perhaps it does not. We will have to wait to see how judicial interpretation treats it. My thinking on this is influenced by the fact that under the old law, which contained similar words to this bill, there was not a single successful prosecution of a medical doctor for performing abortions under the law.
Given that, and given the extended definition contained in Bill C-43, it is very unlikely that a physician would be convicted of an offence under this act without having carried on in a way that is grossly outrageous and in apparent violation of the idea of sanctity of human life, both of the mother and of the unborn child or foetus.
The bill has been before the House since November last year. It was considered at second reading and debated extensively. It was considered in committee with many amendments put forward and defeated. I am soriy that our rules prevented some of those amendments from being voted on last night when we voted on the other amendments debated at that time.
Last evening there were eleven separate votes on different amendments before this House. Every single
one of the amendments was defeated. Those amendments presented a range. They were strong pro-life amendments, for the most part, and one was a very strong pro-choice amendment from the other side. Every one of them was defeated by a substantial margin.
As a result of those votes last evening and the activities of the committee, no other bill could pass this House of Commons except Bill C-43.1 do not believe it is possible for a majority of members of this place to pass any other bill. If that is so, what is our responsibility as members of the House of Commons? In my view, we are elected as members to represent the views of our constituents, yes; to represent our country, yes; and to make decisions on issues such as this one. Parliament must speak on this issue. We cannot leave this matter of abortion, and the great debate that rages in our country on this issue, to the courts. As members of a legislature, we have an obligation to speak on this issue.
Parliament does not speak just through speeches. Each of us can be here and make our own speech and say we are representing or making our views known in Parliament, whatever they may be. Parliament speaks through legislation, through pieces of legislation or resolutions that are adopted in this House.
We have before us a bill which in my view represents the collective will of the majority of the members of this place. This is the way we deal with the public and this is the way we speak for the public: by enacting legislation and by dealing with resolutions. This bill, as it does in representing that majority view, is the way in which we as a Parliament ought to address the Canadian pubic on this issue.
In my view Bill C-43 does that. It says to the Canadian public that we regard abortion as something very important. We feel that there should be some protection afforded to both women who may be pregnant and to unborn children. Therefore we will put a law in place that will require that a woman who wishes to have an abortion will obtain the consent of a physician before obtaining that abortion. That is all that is required in this law. It allows the physician to grant the abortion whenever he feels the physical, mental, or emotional health of the woman is threatened. That is included and any other health matter will also be included. It says: "when the health or life of the mother is threatened".
May 24, 1990

In other words, it is a veiy wide discretion given to physicians in Canada to make those decisions in consultation with the woman who comes to them for an abortion. I believe that is a reasonable and fair compromise, given the very significantly different views held on this issue by members of the House.
This may not be the first choice for any member of the House. It may be a second choice for most of us, but I say that as members of Parliament we have an obligation. Sure, we have difficulty. Sure, our constituents have very widely held views and very sincerely held views on this issue. I expect that very few members have been written to, demonstrated against or heard from so many constituents by telephone or otherwise as I have on this issue.
I recognize there is a divergence of view, but surely as legislators, as members of Parliament, we have to act together and make a decision. Having voted down all other options and having come up with a bill which in its evident simplicity is and which is very short, I think we have an obligation now to say: "All right, we cannot do anything else. The only thing we can do is adopt this bill".
I say to hon. members that although it may not be their first choice-and it is not mine-we have to look at it and ask: "Is there anything else we can do? Is this not a reasonable thing to do, to balance the rights that we all wish to protect in Canada and to give some recognition to the competing interests reflected in this great debate that has gone on for so many years in Canada?" It is time to bring the debate to an end, to pass this legislation, and to see how the courts interpret it.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not arrive sooner to hear the speech by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who, I feel, has shown considerable leadership today by recognizing the fact that the abortion issue is controversial, complex and divisive, and that pro-choice and pro-life supporters are miles apart on this issue, so much so, that-and the hon. member is absolutely right-it is incumbent upon Parliament to take a serious look at this question, because Canadians expect us to produce a bill that seeks to reconcile these two views.
Government Orders
I want to ask the hon. member, who was elected for the first time in 1988, whether he thinks this issue is so important it could mean losing one's seat in the next election. Will his constituents hold it against him- There are members who say: I have no choice, because otherwise I would lose my seat on this issue. Does he believe that the abortion issue can have this kind of impact on the electoral process?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I will be quite frank with the hon. member who asked the question, and I want to thank her, if I may, for her compliment.
I don't know the answer to this question because I don't know how many people in my riding consider this policy, this bill to be very important. I don't know how many.
I believe that if this bill is passed by Parliament, by this legislation, the court decisions on this bill will be very important. I think they will show Canadians, especially those who are pro choice, that the bill is not a disaster at all. It is a good bill for everyone.
I imagine people who are pro life will not be very pleased with this bill. However, if the Supreme Court or other courts decide that the rights granted women under this legislation are more restrictive than they are without the bill, then we will have a problem.
I am almost certain that this bill gives women the rights they desire, and despite speeches by hon. members in the New Democratic Party and others, I think we will have fewer problems with this bill than the gentlemen of the NDP have suggested.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: The time for questions and comments has expired. The hon. member for Dartmouth on debate.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am participating in this debate for the second time. The last time I participated was at second reading. I said then, and I repeat, that this is perhaps one of the most difficult debates members from all sides of the House would probably face in their period of time in the House of Commons.
I say this for a couple of reasons. With all due respect to my colleagues in the NDP, one reason is that this issue does not lends itself easily to strict party discipline or ideology. It is an issue with which each and every

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
member of Parliament has had to grapple and to find a rationale to determine how we as legislators at this particular time and how Parliament, given the importance of this debate, fit in.
During debate there has been frequent mention of the rights of women and the rights of the foetus. It seems that the debate has centred on those very rights. Indeed, if we go back to the Supreme Court ruling, it seemed the ruling that struck down the current legislation was primarily concerned with the rights of women. I quote from the ruling of the Supreme Court of last January 28 when Chief Justice Dickson wrote:
The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state's interest in its protection become "compelling" should be left to the informed judgment of the legislature.
Like Beetz and Wilson, I agree that the protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid governmental objective. It follows that balancing these interests with the lives and health of women as a major factor is clearly an important governmental objective.
He has clearly outlined the complexity and the nub of the current debate in trying to balance rights.
In the initial debate in the House I said that the labels have done nothing to assist in finding common ground. The level of debate in this place has been refreshingly calm, well reasoned, and well put. Only a few times has it got down to the partisanship to which we are all used and in which we participate in most nearly every debate that takes place in this House.
I said during second reading that I would support the bill at that time to get it into committee. I wanted to see if it could be improved upon in committee.
As much as I dislike labels, I have been labelled as someone who leans more toward the protection of the rights of the foetus and are therefore pro-life. I do not like labels because I have been criticized by people on both sides of the debate. That is the nature of politics and human nature.
During the debate and committee hearings I hoped there would be a better definition of some of the key elements of this legislation. I hoped some amendments would come forward which would better define health and at risk. I hoped that through those amendments there would be recognition of the balance between foetal rights and the rights of women.
I want to quote from page 11666 of Hansard for May 22 when at report stage the Minister of Justice said:
This bill has been carefully drafted to achieve a delicate balance between the conflicting views on the abortion issue.
It complies with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Morgentaler case with respect to a woman's constitutional right to security of the person guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to reflect the societal interest in the protection of the foetus.
I submit at this point at third reading that this bill has failed, even though the minister opposite holds the point of view that it has not. Nothing has been changed since introduction of the bill in Parliament. There has been necessary debate in Parliament, by parliamentarians in committee, and by Canadians on this issue. I regret to say that I still cannot see that the bill has been altered in any way, shape or form to strike, in my view, the balance between the rights of women and the rights of the foetus.
The bill still leaves the decision as to whether an abortion is warranted to medical practitioners who, with all their medical training and professional experience, will subjectively make the decision as to whether or not an abortion is warranted, as to whether or not the physical, mental, or psychological health of the woman is at risk as broadly defined in the bill. We saw amendments defeated last night after thorough and proper debate, as was the will of members present in the House of Commons. I can no longer look with any hope at this bill being refined to the point where I-and I have been labelled by others to be on the pro-life side of the debate-can support it.
I want to tell the House that I did not come here so wildly zealous that I did not want to see or could not understand other points of view in the debate. I have listened carefully to people on the other side of the issue, people whose judgments I truly trust. They seem to me from past experience to be logical and fair in their comments in opposition to particular points of view. I have heard the debate of other people who are perhaps closer to pro-life, and the quandary in which I found myself when this issue was first raised in the House has not been lessened.
When the vote is taken at third reading I will have no choice but to vote against this bill. I know some will criticize me for my position, as members on the other side have been criticized for their position. I am not here
May 24, 1990

to talk about taking rights away from women. That is not my intent.
People who characterize the debate as my way or the doorway or harshly criticize anyone in this debate do a great disservice to the issue. I have listened to some members in the Commons during this debate who got perhaps a little too entrenched in their own position and maybe did not listen to what some of the other people were going through.
This is not one of those bills where you come in and say: "Okay, what is the party line? How do we deal with this? What are the zingers? What are the things that we do to try to make the government or whoever proposed the legislation look bad?" It is not one of those debates.
This is a unique debate that is taking place in the House. Some people still claim this is a compromise piece of legislation. I cannot accept it as such. I might be able to change my position if I thought this bill could somehow would progress so that glaring omissions, such as the social net that should be in place so that women never again have to look at abortion as an option because of economics, could be added.
If I had seen a willingness or undertaking by the government to address that particular economic problem, if I had seen a consensus developing and a program and timetable put into place whereby education was the basis for progress, perhaps I would have been a little more able to move my position. This has been such a divisive debate and I have heard members on all sides of the House say they will be thankful when it is gone. They say, "It will be out of the House and we will not have to deal with it again, to answer those letters that we don't like to answer from people who just cannot stand our point of view, whatever it is".
I do not believe that when this bill is passed, imperfect as it is, it will voluntarily ever be revisited in this place. So when people say that it is a start, I say it is a start and a stop because, if passed, this law will grant almost unrestricted abortion on demand. I do not think that that bodes well for the Supreme Court ruling, nor do I think that it protects those who have no voice, the foetuses. I will be voting against this at third reading.
Government Orders


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. friend to comment on what he feels is the male responsibility in the whole question of preventing unwanted pregnancy.
He talked about wanting to see social programs, or something to that effect, in the bill. This seems to be after the fact and directed again to women having the sole responsibility.
What is the primary responsibility of men in reproductive planning, family planning, and prevention of unwanted pregnancies? What does he think can be done so that there would be greater responsibility on the part of men so we would not have this need for abortions?


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am going to start off by saying to my hon. colleague that I read her remarks of yesterday and I have already commented on them earlier. I find it distressing that she has intimated, at least in her remarks yesterday, that perhaps men do not have a right to participate in this debate, or to vote.
Now that is what I read in yesterday's Hansard. It shows the entrenchment of some positions. Some people who believe as the member does will still quote men who support their particular point of view.
The whole area of prevention is not solely a woman's nor a man's responsibility. It is a joint responsibility because it does not take only one gender to procreate and create new live. It takes both.
There has to be a determined, well-directed approach to prevention of unwanted pregnancies. It is true that perhaps at this time many in our society believe that the woman is solely responsible for not getting pregnant. Maybe that is the way it was when I grew up as well. But I think it is incumbent upon society and its legislators, such as ourselves, to ensure that we embark on a national program of education so that we do not have unwanted pregnancies. If that means making contraceptive technology more easily and readily available in the schools and across the counter, so that nobody ever has an economic reason for pregnancy because they cannot afford contraception, then so be it.
The whole area of preventing unwanted pregnancies is something that, as a society, we often decided to ignore. Many times parents will not sit down at an early enough age and discuss these real problems with their children. Inevitably, we end up dealing with the consequences of our own insecurity in dealing with the sexuality of our own children. The consequences of not being able to

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
deal with the sexuality of our own children through education, through prevention and through dialogue is unwanted pregnancies; it is the new scourge of the eighties and nineties and perhaps the next century in communicable diseases such as AIDS.
What I am saying, in response, is that it is equally the male and the female responsibility. It is the responsibility of families, legislators and educators. It is a societal responsibility to ensure that we deal with these very major issues so that we are not forced to deal with the consequences. Many women, and men because they also play a part in this debate, have to deal with the consequences of being ill-informed about sexuality and such things as unwanted pregnancies, abortion legislation and the crippling and deadly illness called AIDS.
In conclusion, I think that governments have to play a role and I would like to see governments play a much more pro-active role in that direction.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, this being the first time I have the floor while you are in the chair, I should like to extend to you my sincere congratulations and best wishes in the performance of your duties. I am sure you will prove to be an outstanding Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, of all the debates in which I spoke the one on abortion has to be the debate to which I devoted most time and consideration, first as a woman, second as a politician. I am sure that being a woman member of government faced with the decision involved in a vote on a measure such as Bill C-43 does not have the same implications as for our male colleagues-like yourself, Mr. Speaker-if only because nature did not intend them to carry a foetus.
In 1978 I had a miscarriage after three and a half months of pregnancy. Quite sincerely, I had yet to feel the presence of a child in my womb. It was not unwanted and the only bad memory I have is the fact that a small army of medical students kept parading through my room over the weekend. Mr. Speaker, when that topic is
being debated I feel as if my intimacy as a woman has been invaded.
I am deeply shocked when I hear pro-lifers say that women are immoral and child killers. Given the various comments I heard in this debate, I was outraged when a physician told the legislative committee members that the best thing that could happen to a 12-year-old girl impregnanted by her father was to bear his child. This is undue imposition of one's personal views on the entire life of a poor child victim of incest. Conversely it would be just as outrageous to hear a woman say she is seeking an abortion for purely esthetic reasons.
That being said, here we are again debating Bill C-43. Never have I witnessed such antagonism as I did when people appeared before the legislative committee to give evidence on Bill C-43.
With a few exceptions-two, I think-all those who took part opposed the bill, but for opposite reasons: for some, C-43 was pro-choice; for others, it was pro-life.
Every day, from coast to coast, we had almost equal numbers of witnesses with diametrically opposite opinions appear before us. It was very hard, Mr. Speaker, because as legislators, we must weigh the pros and cons to be in touch with all the people, who expect their government to make decisions. This led me to think further on the real significance of Bill C-43-access to abortion.
I do not at all share the viewpoint of the Canadian Medical Association that physicians, for fear of prosecution, will no longer perform abortions. Come on! Physicians are constantly liable to prosecution for any medical act they perform. Why should abortion, which is a medical procedure, be subject to different standards?
Neither, Mr. Speaker, do I share the opinion of those who say that the doctor, rather than the woman, will make the decision to have an abortion. Come on, Mr. Speaker, with or without a law, a woman must talk to her doctor in any case! She does not sit in front of him speechless. She must explain her situation; the doctor must examine her, whether there is a law or not. The doctor will tell her that the pregnancy has reached a certain stage and that according to his standards, he may or may not-We know that even Mr. Morgentaler, who

May 24, 1990

is the most open on this issue, does not perform abortions after 18 weeks, or at least he thinks it over seriously.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 is a formal acknowledgment of what is now current practice. I listened to hon. members talking about their draft amendments, and once again I noticed that in many cases-I am not saying all, but in many cases-there is a tendency to ignore the fact that women are quite able to make such important decisions, which are never made lightly. People seem to think that women like having abortions. When a woman has to decide, who are we, who are you to judge or decide on her behalf?
In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is none of our business. To say that women who are faced with unwanted pregnancies should carry those pregnancies to term and then put these children up for adoption is narrow-minded and shows contempt for women.
I would remind those who feel insulted by what I just said of the case of a young single woman in Vancouver. In 1948, after being denied an abortion by Dr. William McCallum, who is still living with this on his conscience, she committed suicide. You may say that she committed suicide for other reasons, but in any case, she gave that particular reason, and that was one too many.
There are also thousands of women who are victims of family violence in their relationships with spouses or boyfriends. What about young women in blended families who experience situations that are extremely complex? For instance, one of my constituents came to see me, Mr. Speaker, and told me her mother's boyfriend had made her pregnant and that her mother was pregnant as well. Lovely family!
Where are all those members who are against abortion, when these women need your compassion and your understanding so that they can live like human beings? Why do you lavish all your attention on the foetus, instead of giving these women the moral support they have a right to expect? What kind of logic is this, that a foetus has as many rights as a living human being who needs help?
Over the past three years, Mr. Speaker, I have often put this question to pro-life men with whom I had lengthy discussions: You who are so adamantly pro-life, as I too am pro-life- People who believe that prochoice advocates are against life are completely off the
Government Orders
track. We are all pro-life. I would ask such a man if his beliefs were strong enough that he would readily tell his legitimate wife that his mistress is pregnant and that henceforth the family would have to make sacrifices in order to support that woman and her child. This may sound funny, but such is reality. That sort of thing is a common occurrence, Mr. Speaker. You are aware of that, take a look in your own backyard. I was given a very simple answer: Of course not, its up to society to look after that. Some people profess to be pro-life because it seems to be the thing to do, but it is a different ball game when concrete gestures are called for.
I know I will be called everything under the sun, but I have had enough being branded as irresponsible for accepting baby killings. The day before yesterday the hon. member for Hillsborough told the House, and I quote:
I am horrified that anyone could say that a procedure which kills one human being for the convenience of another is a medical procedure.
A few statistics might enlighten the House. In 1985 only 3 per cent of abortions were performed at 17 weeks, and 89 per cent at 13 weeks. As you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, this is a far cry from what pro-life advocates would have us believe, a far ciy indeed. Women do not kill babies.
Pro-life radicals tell me that no matter how conception took place-abuse, violence, incest, you name it- the foetus has the right to live. We are not thinking about the woman who will have to bear this child conceived in extraordinarily violent conditions. It is like being forced to bear children. I wonder what these people would do to enforce an anti-abortion law. We can talk and make long speeches all we want but, in the end, we must think about the consequences. What are they going to do? Build more prisons for women? Issue an injunction against my belly? Nobody in Canadian society has a right to do that to me.
We should perhaps listen to reason and realize that women have rights, as the Supreme Court recognized in the Morgentaler case as well as in the famous Dodd and Chantal Daigle cases. It is easy to spout out great moral principles. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we all wish no woman had to go through an abortion. If that were the case, it would mean that women's economic and emotional situation is perfect. There would not be a problem.

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
But that is not the reality. As you know, most single mothers live below the poverty line. They are destitute. In the name of morality, some people want to- The women having abortions will only be judged after they die and come face to face with God like everyone else. It is not up to us human beings to decide for them.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much time I have left but I hope the bill is passed by the House. At last, after all these years of wrenching debates, I am sure it will be challenged before the courts, as the Committee was told. Has there ever been an act of Parliament that has not been challenged before the courts? They all are. In the final instance, the Supreme Court will decide.
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court will decide that Parliament has made its decision, and I think that after royal assent, people will say: This bill isn't so bad after all. Of course, personally, I would have preferred no legislation at all. However, I was elected and I have a seat in the House, on the government side. Decisions must be made. If I were on the other side, it would be easy. I would say no, no legislation, and I would object to any legislation at all. That is how things work in this country. That is how democracy works in our political parties. I am on this side of the House, however, and I am faced with Bill C-43. What I want is for the House to finish this debate, because I want to go on to something else. I want to make the public aware and demand public attention for the worst crisis in society today, and I am referring to the sexual abuse of children. It is a tragedy, and a national disgrace, and we must come out and say so. We have to rescue these children and give them love and affection. We have to get them out of the horrible environment in which they live. We cannot let this go on.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen what is happening in the case of Judge Andree Ruffo in Quebec City, a woman who has my unqualified admiration and who is fighting the bureaucracy because she believes in children. We all believe in children. I was so pleased when the former leader of the New Democratic Party decided, in his last debate in the House, to talk about child poverty. That is another disgrace we must talk about. Instead of having these futile discussions, instead of trying to make women
do certain things and prevent them from doing others, we should sit down and talk about what we can do to deal, once and for all, with child poverty. What can we do to deal with the tragic financial circumstances of Canadian women? In my riding there are women who have trouble making both ends meet, who are poor, sick, and the rest. They have to cope with just about everything, and their husband, the father of their children, has left. Sometimes they don't even know where he is. He is in love with some other woman. Great! That is reality. Those are the sordid facts. Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I hope that all members will realize we are going to pass Bill C-43. It isn't perfect. Nothing is ever perfect. However, I was closely involved in preparing this legislation, and it was a long, complex and difficult process.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues on the government side who worked with me, in the Conservative caucus and on the legislative committee, so that finally we were able to produce a bill that in the circumstances, I believe, provides the best possible compromise Canadian society can expect from a government that has shown leadership.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member feels very strongly about what she has just said. Her emotions came across the House very strongly, but she mentioned one thing that bothered me a bit.
This is a free vote in the House of Commons on the abortion issue. The hon. member said that, because she is sitting on the government side of the House, she must make a decision, and that it is harder for her because she is on the government side of the House than if she were sitting on the other side. I want to state very clearly that, in a free vote in the House of Commons, it is up to every individual, no matter where he or she sits in the House, to make that personal decision on his or her own.
Is the hon. member telling us that she has been pressured by the government into voting for this bill or is she, indeed, voting in accordance with her conscience? I am sure I am speaking for people in every comer of the House when I tell her that, on this issues, all members have to stand and be counted. Whether they belong to one party or another does not matter. They are still
May 24, 1990

accountable to their constituents and a free vote in the House must be precisely that, no matter where we sit.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any pressure, none whatsoever, from anybody on this side of the House regarding this bill. I just say, because the debate has been going on for 10 years or more, since the first legislation came into force under the Trudeau government, that I hope we can deal with this bill now and then go on to more important questions.
I am sure that Hansard tomorrow will show that I said that, as the government, we have the obligation to present legislation. The Prime Minister has said that because of the various views on this question there is going to be a free vote. No one on this side of the House, certainly not myself, has been pushed to vote for this bill. I think the hon. member is as sick and tired of the debate as we are. I would hope that he would vote for the bill so that we can carry on to other important matters. That is what I was trying to say to him, and that is what I hope he is going to do next Tuesday.


Jim Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate the hon. member on a very passionate, forceful speech, although I disagree with most of what she said.
Through the process of committee hearings in which she claims to have participated, did the hon. member have any remorse at all at the fact that the bill has a wide-open gestational period? There is no limit as to when a woman could ask for and receive an abortion. The child could be hours, days, or weeks from delivery and there would be no problem at all if the doctor agrees an abortion should be performed, for whatever reasons. Did that cause any qualms in the hon. member's mind at all?


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. In the 1985 Statistics Canada report, it is very clear that no abortion was performed after 20 weeks unless for a very, very important reason. Only 0.3 per cent of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and I suppose then only for very dramatic and important reasons. The facts speak for themselves. Doctors in the country do not perform abortions after a certain period.
The Chantal Daigle affair was a different matter because it is one case among thousands and thousands of cases. Are we going to legislate regarding this one case?
5. ft 31
No, because the facts are there and I will urge the member to read the 1985 report.
Of course, I totally disagree with a woman having an abortion after 20 weeks, unless it is for very dramatic and important health reasons.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, more than 5,000 aging Canadian veterans residing in long-term care hospitals were dealt a blow in the government's harsh cutting measures contained in the Wilson budget.
They will have to pay more than $3,000 each for their lodging in an effort by the government to save $18 million. In addition, as a result of the government attack on the Veterans Independence Program, 16,000 veterans who are living at home will lose some of the help provided for their heavy house cleaning because of an $18 million cut from this key program to aging veterans to which the government refers to as streamlining.
This saving of $35 million against of a deficit of $30 billion, on the backs of the veterans, is a poor way to show our appreciation of their valiant deeds on behalf of all Canadians during the war. It is especially so as these veterans' sources are severely limited.
This shameful and disgraceful way to go about finding means to reduce the deficit will not be taken lying down. That message is coming in more clearly every day. We hope that the Prime Minister and his government will listen to the plea to rescind these cuts and allow our veterans to retain their well-earned dignity.


TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, Dominion Textile recently won an award of excellence in the Quebec business community's most prestigious competition for the growth of its business outside the country. Dominion Textile won the Mercure prize for international development. This competition was started by the Quebec Chamber of Commerce 10 years ago to

May 24, 1990
5. ft 31
celebrate the outstanding achievements of business people.
As a result of their acquisitions and expansion of their operations, Dominion Textile has become the world's largest denim producer and a leader in many other products as well. The corporation went ahead with major investments in technology for several plants, including a $35-million modernization program now under way in Drummondville and Saint-Timothee-all this without subsidies.
Dominion Textile, which began business in 1905, is the largest supplier of textiles and related products in Canada. Its international network of offices, factories, subsidiaries and associated companies now extends to nearly 50 countries.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer the management and workers of Dominion Textile my warmest congratulations.


THE LATE VELMA ORLIKOW
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleagues and I were saddened today to learn of the death of Val Orlikow, wife of our former colleague David Orlikow and the former member for Winnipeg North, who served this House and his constituents with distinction for over 26 years. I am sure all members would want to join with me in expressing sincere condolences to David at this very difficult time.
Val Orlikow has a place in Canadian history independent of David. She has a place as one of the victims of CIA psychiatric experiments conducted in Canada at the Allan Institute in Montreal. One of her goals in life was to see justice done with respect to these experiments, and others like them, not just those done by the CIA. The case of Linda McDonald of British Columbia comes to mind.
Val Orlikow has died without the Canadian government ever admitting its own complicity in the CIA experiments that so damaged her life.
Out of court settlements in the United States are one thing, but having your own country own up to its part and promising never to do again what was done to her, was something worth waiting for, and wait she did.
For Mrs. Orlikow the wait is over. For the government, the shame continues.


THE BALTIC STATES
Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, the Presidents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania met in Tallin, Estonia on May 12 to reinstate the 1934 treaty that established close political and economic ties between the Baltic republics when they were previously independent.
At this meeting they issued of the Joint Baltic Council statement requesting that the conference on security and co-operation of the European member countries arrange a hearing in Copenhagen in order to present a mutual declaration and statement requesting that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania be admitted as members.
The 35-country membership currently includes such countries as Cyprus, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, both Germanys, Poland, Yugoslavia and Romania.
I believe it is only fitting that legitimate member states of the east European community be allowed access to address a plenary session at a human rights conference in Copenhagen.
I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to draw this issue to the attention of the Canadian delegation to Copenhagen, to develop a favourable stance and to report subsequently back to the House his suggested stance.


TRANSPORT
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, since deregulation came into effect two years ago, the trucking industry has suffered at the hands of the federal government. This government did not plan ahead for deregulation. It has refused to listen to the concerns of the industry.
This past week and until this morning we were faced with a crisis. The various blockades represent the anger
May 24, 1990

and the frustration that truckers feel because the concerns of their industry have been continually ignored.
This situation demands attention. In my riding of Malpeque, one trucking organization had 150 trucks delayed on the highway between Prince Edward Island and Ottawa.
I urge this government to resolve immediately the concerns of the trucking industry. It is time to begin listening to the industry, and to ensure that concerns are attended to so that critical emergencies like the one we have experienced do not happen again.


CANADA'S FITWEEK
Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Friday, May 25, is Sneaker Day, when all Canadians, including members of Parliament, are invited to wear their sneakers in order to promote a healthy active lifestyle. Sneaker Day marks the beginning of Canada's Fitweek, a week of activities which runs from May 25 to June 3.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that Canada's Fitweek is the most important celebration of its kind in the world. All Canadians should be proud of this achievement. Last year, eight million people from coast to coast took part in over 14,000 events.
The Government of Canada, through Fitness Canada, is a major supporter of Canada's Fitweek, which is presented in co-operation with the provinces and territories, 17 national organizations and 12 sponsors. Canada's Fitweek is really a popular event.
Over the next 10 days, I call on all hon. members to join Canadians across the land by promoting and participating in the many activities planned for their ridings.


FORESTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the government's Green Plan is collapsing with the resignation of the minister and the
appointment of a part-time Minister of the Environment.
One way the government can show its commitment to the environment and our forests would be for the Minister of Forestry to announce today, as forestry ministers in the west, especially British Columbia, are expecting him to do, that a new tree planting agreement will be signed today to help renew our forests.
The Minister of Forestry has not lived up to five previous commitments to sign a B.C. agreement. He should help himself, this government and our forests by moving immediately to have these agreements signed and implemented.


CANADA'S FITWEEK
Mr. John E. Cole (York- Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to announce the kick-off of Canada's 1990 Fitweek which starts tomorrow, May 25.
All Canadians are invited to join me and my House of Commons colleagues in donning their sneakers, no matter how flashy or conservative they happen to be- mine are pink-to partake in a physical activity such as running, rope jumping or a stroll in the park.
Canada's Fitweek, May 25 to June 3, is the largest annual celebration of physical activity in the world. Again this year over eight million participants will take part in every type of physical activity available.
It is truly an event where collaborative efforts between the public and private sectors promote a united message about the importance of an active lifestyle.
Sneaker Day is just one of 12 national projects. In addition, municipalities have organized activities in the spirit of friendly competition with other municipalities.
On this Sunday in my riding of York-Simcoe there is the Persechini Easter Seals Fitness Centre Walk-a-Thon to raise funds for crippled children.
In Ottawa, we have the run for retinitis-pigmentosa research.
Sneaker Day could be the mark of a new day in each of our lives, a day where physical activity, a healthier lifestyle becomes the national, the Canadian way of life.
We are all aware of the increased benefits of maintaining an active life. I invite all members to join Canadians

May 24, 1990
in promoting and participating in the many events planned in their own constituencies as part of Canada's Fitweek.


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, western diversification was supposedly the answer to western Canada's economic woes. It was going to produce less dependence upon the agricultural sector.
Interestingly enough, eight months before the election there were expenditures that exceeded $400 million. In the fiscal year after the election, expenditures were only $136.8 million. What a coincidence!
This year's Estimates have no reference whatsoever to the Centre for Sustainable Development, no reference whatsoever to the renewal of infrastructure program that was promised for rural Manitoba, and mentioned by the Prime Minister in Portage la Prairie when he visited.
We note with much chagrin that Manitoba and Saskatchewan do not have their fair share. Sixty-three per cent of these projects are in urban areas, and only 37 per cent in rural communities.
Tory ministers and big business-and I do not say that, it is the Canadian Federation of Independent Business-are getting too much of these funds.
There is a large bureaucracy-over 300 people-which is consuming 20 per cent of the expenditures.
We can only diversify if we look at diversification in the total context of high interest rates, the reduction in expenditures for health, education, agriculture, and the shutting down of VIA Rail. We must take all of those into consideration.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity today to say a few words about the Meech Lake Accord because I think that what is happening to the Accord is unacceptable.
The Meech Lake Accord as signed on June 3, 1987 by all First Ministers has been criticized, debased and worse by people who are negative, suspicious, impatient and lacking in any kind of generosity towards each other.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is intolerable that negative feelings that have sush a destructive impact on the goal of national unity set by our government and its leader, Mr. Mulroney, should be allowed to prevail. We should all realize that the little guy from Baie-Comeau, as he has often said, this great Quebecer and this genuine Canadian, will never again let Quebec be insulted as it was under the Trudeau and Chretien regime.
For him and for us, the elected Conservative representatives from Quebec, it is more than a question of honour, it is a matter of the heart.
I have confidence in our Prime Minister and his sensible attitude, and I hope I will never have to doubt the intelligence of some of our provincial First Ministers.


ARGENTINA
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Argentina commemorates its National Day. It will be the 180th anniversary of what has become in Argentinian history the most important event, an event that marks Argentina's true independence and its existence as a free country.
The Argentine revolution of May 1810 was the initial step of a long process in the region which culminated in the independence of various countries of Latin America.
In 1983 Argentina was one of the first countries to initiate a remarkable process of democratization that rebounded through every country in the whole region.
Just a few days ago we hosted a very important commercial mission from Argentina. That mission was headed by two governors, Dr. Eduardo Angeloz and Dr. Rodriguez Saa, both of whom happen to be representatives of two major political parties in Argentina, indicating that every co-operation is possible if there is enough will.
May 24, 1990

As former principal of Argentina School here in Canada and in my present role I would like to extend to Argentina my very best wishes and every success in all future endeavours as they commemorate Argentina National Day.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, within the text of the Special Meech Lake Committee Report-which I had the honour with other colleagues in this House to help prepare-are some passing observations about our hearings which may in fact be more powerful for current considerations than any of the other important messages it contains.
Witness after witness, even those most critical of the Meech Lake Accord, expressed support for Canadian unity and the need to make Canada's second most populous province, Quebec, a participating member in the Canadian constitutional family. There was also general agreement that Quebec's five proposals were reasonable for that purpose.
Surely by now most will realize that therein lies the very essence of the Meech Lake Accord, and it is attainable if only we have the resolve to take it within our grasp.
Let us all support and encourage our First Ministers throughout Canada to bear this over-powering single purpose above all other considerations as they reflect upon the future of our country in these critical days ahead.


CANADA POST
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post continues to cut back on service to rural Canadians. It is contracting out its rural delivery in such a way as to make effective service impossible.
According to officials in Percy township in my riding, Canada Post's tender form for delivery in that area states all mail is to be delivered by three o'clock in the afternoon, seven hours after the local post office opens.
The route is 168 kilometres long with 480 delivery points. Sorting takes at least three hours. To drive from
one end of the route to the other at the speed limit and without stopping takes over two hours. Even if driving up to each mailbox and inserting the mail were to take only a minute for each delivery point, this activity alone would take a total of eight hours. Simple calculations indicate that deliveries would only be finished at nine o'clock at night.
Canada Post not only needs outside help to deliver the mail, it seems to me it needs outside help to do its math.
I urge Canada Post to ensure it reduces the size of its new rural routes to ensure timely delivery. As the Liberal report on the post office specifies, the minister responsible should ensure Canada Post consults in a meaningful way with its best source of information, local citizens, before making major changes.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the corporate welfare bum of the week salutes the wheeler-dealers of Canadian finance. The first nominee is Bums Fry Ltd. which gave $56,000 to the Conservative party in 1988 and $21,000 to the Liberals.
The second nominee is Merrill Lynch which gave $106,000 to the Conservative party in 1988 and only $43,000 to the Liberals.
The third nominee is RBC Dominion Securities which gave $50,000 to both the Conservative and the Liberal parties in 1988.
Now for the winner. The envelope, please.
The winner is Merrill Lynch. It bet on the Conservative party in a big way in 1988. For mastering the art of the deal, Merrill Lynch is the corporate welfare bum of the week.


MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY TELETHON
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Brampton-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, I speak of an event which knows no political boundaries, no racial boundaries, no prejudice of any kind. It is an event which springs from compassion and the kind of caring of which humans at their best are capable.

May 24, 1990
Oral Questions
The annual Muscular Dystrophy Telethon taking place May 26 to May 27 gives residents of Brampton-Malton and surrounding communities an opportunity to come together as one community and support this very special cause.
I would like to pay particular attention to the involvement of our Brampton fire-fighters in the telethon. Not only do these men and women protect our communities every day, without their support the fight against muscular dystrophy would surely be a much harder battle.
I urge everyone in the riding of Brampton-Malton to play their part, as usual, in the race against this debilitating disease and to prove once again that in Brampton- Malton muscular dystrophy faces a tough opponent.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Prime Minister about the constitutional situation, a matter of growing concern for Canadians.
Yesterday in the Elouse the Prime Minister told us that he and Senator Murray were developing new proposals, that he would be speaking to the premiers about them and, further, that he would be reporting to the House on the results of these contacts.
Will the Prime Minister inform the House and therefore Canadians of the exact content of these proposals, of the reactions of the premiers to them, and the extent to which the recommendations of the special committee, the Charest committee, are being taken into account in these efforts to bring about a fair solution to the constitutional impasse?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I plan to begin a series of direct meetings with the premiers beginning tonight at six o'clock at 24 Sussex with Premier Don Getty of Alberta.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think this will be encouraging news for Canadians.
However, yesterday, the Premier of Ontario, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Getty met in Toronto. Both of them called for an early meeting of all first ministers-the Prime Minister of Canada together with all the premiers of all the provinces.
Speaking of the present constitutional accord the Ontario Premier said:
We don't have a lot of time. I think at best we have another week.
Premier Getty said:
So how do we make progress without meeting?
I think he was talking about a meeting of the Prime Minister with all the premiers.
Even though the meeting the Prime Minister has spoken about I hope will be helpful, I ask the Prime Minister: in view of the views of Mr. Peterson and Mr. Getty, does he not now agree that the time has come to call an early meeting of all the first ministers on this constitutional situation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think we are going about it in the proper way.
I have been in touch with the premiers. This is an effort to meet individually with all of them to attempt to narrow the differences and at the conclusion, hopefully, if it is at all possible, it will give rise to the reasonable possibility of calling a First Ministers' Conference that might be successful.
By way of illustration, I point out to my hon. friend who raised the question of Premier Peterson, that he neglected to mention that Premier Peterson yesterday made a very thoughtful and compelling call to the three premiers, who have either repudiated or failed to sign the Meech Lake Accord, to do so, and to consider doing so urgently, because of the importance of the constitutional family being made whole.
I think Premier Peterson was speaking on behalf of a growing number of Canadians when he called upon those three provincial governments to do everything they could to honour the signatures provided at Meech Lake by predecessor governments.
May 24, 1990

I can inform my friend that after I meet with Premier Getty this evening I will be meeting with Premier Peterson tomorrow at one o'clock at 24 Sussex.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in my second question I made specific reference to the views of Premier Peterson because of the constructive approach he has been taking to the matter of nation building and his openness and understanding of the concerns not only of Quebec but of all the regions and provinces of our country.
[Translation}
Mr. Speaker, when people ask him to call a First Ministers' Conference to get us out of the constitutional impasse, the Prime Minister keeps answering that the chances of failure are too high. Doesn't the Prime Minister realize that the risk is far greater if we do not call a conference, if we do nothing, than if there is a conference?

Surely, I ask the Prime Minister, is it not better to meet and risk failure than to fail by not meeting at all? Why not have a Conference of all the First Ministers before June 23?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. friend had questions prepared in advance, but I have been trying to convey to him that there is serious movement going on and there are very serious meetings that have been lined up. I begin this evening with the Premier of Alberta, who was the host of the premiers' conference in Edmonton in 1986 that gave rise to the unanimous call for the equivalent of a Quebec round to seek to bring Quebec into the Constitution following the failure of 1981-82 to do so.
Premier Getty has been a staunch and unfailing ally of Meech Lake ever since.
Premier Peterson, speaking on behalf of the province and the people of Ontario, provided very significant leadership at Meech Lake. He, too, has been unfailing in his support of the Meech Lake Accord as a great instrument of national unity.
It was in that spirit I think that Premier Peterson, well qualified to speak to this issue, called upon the three recalcitrant provinces, if I may put it that way, to sign the
Oral Questions
Meech Lake Accord as quickly as possible so that we could in a very constructive and thoughtful way get on with the process of building a greater Canada.
The meetings that we have called are designed to do precisely that. I think my hon. friend would agree that at this particular point some prudence in meeting with the premiers and trying to prepare an effective First Ministers' Conference is worth the time rather than calling a First Ministers' Conference simply for the sake of having called one that might result in failure. I want success for Canada. I want a Constitution that binds all Canadians together.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the country is being plunged into an economic crisis by the government's monetary policy. Today there was an increase in the Bank of Canada rate by 25 basis points.
How far is the Minister of Finance prepared to let the Governor of the Bank of Canada go in his obsession with zero inflation? Is he prepared to ruin the manufacturing sector in this country? Or, will he come to his senses and direct the Bank of Canada Governor to reflect the reality of the Canadian economic condition?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is correct when he says that there has been a 25 basis point increase in the bank rate today.
I would say that this is in good part due to some of the uncertainties surrounding the ongoing constitutional discussions. The sooner we can get these discussions behind us in a successful way, the sooner we can get behind this uncertainty.
My hon. friend refers to policies of the government. I think that the policies of the government are on track. We are consistently following a series of policies.
I might say to my hon. friend that the financial requirements that were evident for the year ending in March of this year indicate that the budget deficit is about $1 billion less than what we had previously projected.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

May 24, 1990
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think this indicates quite clearly the consistent and conscientious approach that we have been taking to economic policy.
This is the fourth consecutive year in which the budget deficit has come in less than the projections that we have made. The policies that we are following are paying off. They are producing effective results for this country.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, on February 20, the Minister of Finance projected an annual average of 11.1 per cent for interest rates in this country.
He talks about his revised deficit figures. Are the minister and his government going to continue with this high interest policy in the face of evidence from every sector of our economy that it is destroying the economy of this country?
The interest rate today of 14.05 per cent is the highest it has been in eight years. How high does it go before the government realizes it is on a track to destruction?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my hon. friend wants to lead with his chin and talk about the heights of interest rates, since I only need remind him that what we are trying to do is stop inflation from getting out of control so that we can avoid the very high interest rates that we had between 1980 and 1982 when inflation did get out of control.
My hon. friend refers to inflationary pressures. We started in 1989 with an increase in unit labour costs to 4.5 per cent. This is the best example of the broadest measure of how our industry and businesses are competing with the rest of the world.
They started the year at 4.5 per cent and ended at 6.9 per cent. That is the best measure that we can show of how our companies are gaining business.
That increase in inflationary pressures means lost business. Lost business means lost jobs.
We are trying to turn that 6.9 per cent number down so that we can get the pressures and the cost structures of Canadian business under control in order to save and build jobs as well as to have a much brighter future.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
I want to say at the outset that I am pleased that the Prime Minister is going to begin meeting directly with the premiers of this country to discuss the serious situation that we are in.
I would also like to say to the Prime Minister that the objective is a united Canada. The winner in the end has to be Canada itself. I am glad there is now some movement in terms of meeting with the premiers.
In light of these discussions with the premiers and the Prime Minister's talk in the House yesterday about some new proposals now being discussed with them, is he now ready to elaborate a bit on what these new proposals might be?
I realize the sensitivity and delicacy of some of these issues. In light of that, is the Prime Minister in any position today to elaborate to some degree on the direction of these new proposals he is taking to the premiers of this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first, in a personal way, but probably on behalf of all members of the House on this very important issue, I would like to convey congratulations to the member of the NDP for his role on the questions of national unity that has been unfailingly positive and constructive at all times.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: You just dropped 20 points in the polls, Lome. There goes your re-election.


Sergio Marchi: The kiss of death.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to hurt the hon. member with that comment, but I think he knows exactly what I mean. This is a delicate subject which, as Premier Peterson pointed out yesterday, requires a great deal of statesmanship and a very constructive approach because the stakes are very high. What we are talking about is the future of Canada.
May 24, 1990

Yesterday, Premier Getty said "I was at Meech Lake, as were the other premiers. I put the signature of Don Getty and the signature of the Government of Alberta on a piece of paper which was designed in Alberta's interests, in the interests of western Canada, and most of all in the interests of a united Canada". He said "I propose to honour that because it is indispensable that we all do so in the interests of Canadian unity".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will discuss some ideas we have with the premiers. I will ask for some of their thoughts. There have been a number of conversations ongoing among them and, hopefully, out of these intensive consultations will come a consensus reasonable enough to give rise to the view that we might hold a constructive first ministers' conference which will result in what every member of this House wants, a firm irrevocable statement of a united Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Prime Minister is in the same vein, about a national problem that we have. I wonder if the Prime Minister can account for the latest tremendous jump in interest rates in this country? We now have an increase of 25 basis points. It is the highest bank rate in the country since August, 1982. The inflation rate has dropped to 5 per cent. I wonder if the Prime Minister agrees with the Minister of Finance that the latest increase in the bank rate of this country is due to the constitutional impasse and, if so, does that not create more of a sense of urgency to try to resolve this question as quickly as possible?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I agree with both my honourable friend and the Minister of Finance that it is due in part to the political instability that has been engendered because of serious questions raised here and in money markets around the world about our ongoing discussions. It is precisely for this reason why it is so absolutely indispensable for every Canadian, particularly those first ministers whose predecessors had signed a constitutional document, to understand the importance of constructive and thoughtful compromise.
Oral Questions
I thought Premier Getty, and I am paraphrasing, put it best of all when he said that to some extent constitutional discussion among Canadians is an act of faith. He said Alberta did this in the interests of national unity, believing that in subsequent discussions Alberta, which has been a chief proponent of Senate reform for many years, would be able to achieve that in ongoing and subsequent discussions.
Premier Getty is right. I believe that the faith he showed at Meech Lake will never be abused by any first minister or by any Canadian. Any first minister who would do that, I think would be doing a profound disservice to Canada and to Canadian unity. Premier Getty, Premier Peterson, and others, are entirely right. Some degree of good faith, of course, is required from Canadians among one another so that the document, having been signed, can give rise to Quebec coming back home into the constitutional family and will allow us to move on finally to second and third, and no doubt fourth rounds, into the future, as one strong, united Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. I suggest that the interest rate policy itself is creating instability in this country. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance is ready to send a clear signal across the country and around the world that this country is indeed strong by insisting that the Bank of Canada, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, drop interest rates immediately in this country?
Is he willing now to stand up and say to John Crow that enough is enough? High interest rates in this country are hurting ordinary Canadians from coast to coast, our bank rate is now 5 per cent higher than the American bank rate, our inflation rate is dropping in the country, and because of these factors, because of the situation in the country, let us send out a strong signal to say that we are a strong country. Let us drop those interest rates so we can appropriately become more productive as an economy in this country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that this is a strong country and that we do have a strong economy. That is precisely why the budget deficit has come in $1 billion less than we had projected.

May 24, 1990
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The policies we have been following, whether they be monetary policy, interest rate policy or budgetary policy, or policy to improve the efficiency of the economy, all of these are broadly supported by the major international economic organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund or the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development in Paris. These organizations state that our policies are the right policies we should be following. The facts are there themselves.
Canada has been second only behind Japan over the last five years in economic growth. We are number one of the major industrialized countries in the creation of new jobs. Ten years ago we were number ten of the trading countries in our trade performance. In the latest figures, we are number seven in ranking. We are improving our ranking in many, many ways. That says a good deal about the strength of our economy. It also says a good deal about the wisdom of the policies we have been following.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a delegation from British Columbia to the Government of Canada headed by the Honourable Stan Hagen, Minister of Regional and Economic Development and the Honourable Bruce Strachen, Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology of British Columbia, and two distinguished scientists, Nobel prize recipient, Dr. Carlo Rubbia, Director of Cem in Geneva and Dr. Val Fitch, Dean of Phsyics of Princeton University and 1980 Nobel prize recipient.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The trucking crisis in Canada is a direct result of this government's policy of deregulation.
Since last Monday, General Motors in Quebec sent home 3,000 workers; 15,000 workers were sent home in Oshawa; Chrysler's van plant in Windsor was shut down
and Ford shut down three plants in St. Thomas and Oakville. Fresh produce needed by Canadians was left rotting at border crossing points.
Will the minister inform the House of the commitments he made to Canadian truckers today, and, in particular, the remedies that will go into effect to protect truckers against cabotage and the unfair pricing practices that American truckers have been imposing on Canadian truckers?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, the truckers did not mention deregulation as their problem at all.
I went to Windsor last night in order to meet with representatives of the independent truckers. We had very helpful discussions during which we agreed to examine further methods of eliminating cabotage in co-operation with the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Second, there was some concern with respect to unfair competition. I agreed that we would look into that matter. We went into some discussions as to whether the appropriate amount of fuel tax is being paid at all times by all carriers. We are prepared to look into methods to sort that out. I also would say that I had the assistance of the Minister of Transport for Ontario in this matter.
When the discussions were concluded, the representatives of the independent truckers were satisfied and undertook to see that the barricades would be lifted.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. The big question remains: why must there always be a crisis before we get involved in settling the problem? Look at the air traffic control problem, the airport security and shipping problems and the unfair competition that was levied against the Canadian truckers. We warned the government about what deregulation would do to the Canadian trucking industry.
When will the minister deliver a new transportation policy for Canada and Canadian workers that will not only protect the Canadian trucker but will protect all Canadian workers in the transportation industry? This government has an obligation to do that.
May 24, 1990


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps a discussion with my friend's colleague from Winnipeg might be a little helpful in informing him as to exactly when deregulation started. It was before the hon. member's time but deregulation started certainly in my hon. friend's time.
All of those problems occur from time to time. We have taken the necessary steps. We went down to Windsor to look at the problem and to come up with some answers. We have come up with some answers. The truckers said they would lift the barricade. I take them at their word.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Today the crucial consultation sessions on the government's Green Plan for the environment began the long-awaited legislation on the environmental assessment process is expected in the House of Commons shortly. Despite the importance and the fullness of the environmental agenda in Canada, the Prime Minister has appointed a minister who admits he can only be a part-time environment minister.
Does the Prime Minister believe protection of the environment is a part-time job?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, no. Indeed the protection of the environment is a full-time job. It is one of the highest importance which is why, I believe for the first time in Canadian history, under this government the environment minister was brought into the Priorities and Planning committee of the Cabinet of Canada, indicating the highest priority that this government attributes to the environment. I may be mistaken on that but I think it is right.
With regard to the question, my hon. friend knows that there was-how might I delicately put this-an unplanned vacancy in the department, as a result of which I have asked to act on an interim basis one of the most senior ministers of the government, the President of the Treasury Board. He is also a member of P and P, he has been a member of the ministerial committee preparing The Green Plan from its inception and was specifically
Oral Questions
charged by me, as Prime Minister, from the beginning with ensuring that full financing was there for The Green Plan. I can think of no one more qualified than him to do it.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the minister in question did say in answers to some questions from the news media that he could only be a part-time environment minister.
A part-time environment minister is not acceptable to Canadians. Will the Prime Minister agree today, because of the very busy schedule of the President of the Treasury Board, to assign these important responsibilities to a full-time senior minister with the authority and mandate to provide the leadership necessary to meet today's environmental challenges?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, while I indicated in the release yesterday that this assignment of responsibilities is on an interim basis, all who know the President of the Treasury Board and know his work habits will know that he will work full and complete days at the environment ministry to make sure that that job is done exactly the way my hon. friend would want it to be done.
Speaking of which, because of his interest in the environment, I know my hon. friend would want to celebrate today the fact that, after some six years of hard slugging by this government and by many members of the House, yesterday the House of Representatives in the United States passed the Clean Air Act. We are now well on our way to an acid rain treaty with the United States.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the government wants me to congratulate the government. I will wait until the acid rain legislation is through the United States process before I give any accolades to anyone.
My question is also directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and is about the environment. Canadians are deeply concerned about pollution, about drinking water quality, about global warming and about the inaction of the government.
By nature of the portfolio, the recent resignation of the former Minister of the Environment has meant the loss of two years time, hope, and energy put in by

May 24, 1990
Oral Questions
Canadians across the country in pursuit of policies on the environment. My question to the Prime Minister is also in relation to his appointment of a part-time minister. The Minister of the Environment is here but the hearings are being launched today in Winnipeg and the Minister of Energy is there. Would the Prime Minister at least assure Canadians who are participating in the consultations in Winnipeg that the part-time minister he has appointed will be the minister who carries through the consultations and carries through implementation of the Green Plan when it comes before the House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is needlessly churlish in regard to a situation that I have explained at great length. He implies that the resignation itself of the minister means that two years of effort and energy have been lost. If that were true, then the recent resignation of Ed Broadbent would mean that two years of energy and effort were lost by the NDP and that is clearly not true. You are as energetic and as brilliant as you have has always been and I congratulate you.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, let me respond with great celerity, as the Prime Minister would always want to say, and ask a question of the new part-time Minister of the Environment, who himself described to me yesterday the job as being part-time. The most important cabinet portfolio in Canada today is a parttime one.
Another minister drafted the Green Plan over the past year. A minister who has continuously sent out mixed signals on the environment and is generally seen by Canadians as being anti-environment, the Minister of Energy, is at the launch of the Green Plan hearings today. Does the new Minister of the Environment plan to participate in the consultations fully and completely, and does he intend to stay for the implementation of what he learns from the consultations, or will some other minister take on that job?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to tell my hon. colleague across the way that there are at least three things that have not changed at all.
The first one is the timetable that we are following on our environmental agenda. That timetable will be respected and I expect that we will be able to meet our targets as announced before.
The second thing is that our commitment has not changed. The environment is at the top of our agenda as a government and will remain there.
The third point which has not changed is that there is a full-time Minister of the Environment. I expect to be in Halifax on Monday morning, I expect to be at all the hearings and I expect to see the process through.


AGRICULTURE
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Agriculture and concerns the Canadian Egg Producers Council which complains that importers of table eggs from the United States repack eggs imported in bulk in containers labeled "Product of Canada".
Can the minister reassure this House and the producers and tell them what he intends to do to stop this fradulent labeling practice?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, we were informed of this matter in recent months.
Canada's position is very clear: table eggs must show the country of origin. The Canadian Egg Processors Council, unfortunately, does not support us in this position.
On several occasions, we have brought those concerned together and it is obviously in our interest, that this policy be respected by people here in Canada. I can assure my colleague that this matter has already been discussed and we will continue to work on it so that consumers who buy products on the market know the country of origin of these products.
I can assure you that we will take it into account.
May 24, 1990


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau - Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House echo the remarks made by the minister last Tuesday when he expressed Canada's dismay concerning the unprecedented violent acts following the murder of seven Palestinians at Richon-Letion near Tel-Aviv.
We also believe that the current deadlock in the peace process contributes to create instability and violence.
This is why I want to ask the minister whether Canada is prepared to support the Americans who would send United Nations observers to the occupied territories, and what will our ambassador have to say at the Security Council sessions scheduled for tomorrow or Saturday?


Charles Joseph Clark: In fact, Mr. Speaker, neither the United States nor any other Security Council member have actively advocated dispatching such an observer team. However the American Secretary of State did say that the U.S. administration would certainly entertain this kind of proposition.
For our part we in Canada are also prepared to consider this proposition because our country has always been a strong supporter of peacekeeping activities and observer teams. Hon. members would know that Canada did lend strong support to the rather limited but no less important UNRWA mission concerning the Palestinians.
Canada's ambassador will indeed play a significant part in the Security Council discussions.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, will the minister and the Prime Minister raise the issue with UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar and also with President Gorbachev during their respective visits next week in Ottawa? If so, what will he tell them regarding Canada's position?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we certainly do intend to discuss the question of the Middle East and, particularly, the
Oral Questions
matters now before the Security Council with the Secretary General of the United Nations and with the leaders of the Soviet government when they are here next week.
We will indicate to them that Canada is prepared to support any constructive activity that might be taken by the United Nations, and we will certainly take the opportunity to reiterate the point that was made by the hon. member in the introduction to his question and that is that the situation now is creating circumstances of increasing instability. One cannot assume that the status quo is neutral in terms of the lives of people in the territory. It is becoming increasingly dangerous. Among other things, the capacity of moderate leadership on both sides to retain their efforts to exercise restraint is put under strain every day.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport.
The Sports Federation of Canada, in its brief to the finance committee, stated that "the application of the GST would have a devastating effect on the activities of amateur sport".
My question to the minister is this: In recognition of the importance of amateur sport here in Canada, will the minister increase the funding to these organizations to offset the negative impact of the GST?


An hon. member:: I hope so.


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the Federation of Canadian Amateur Sport. I understand that prior to my becoming minister in that portfolio, it had met with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Revenue. As a matter of fact, it was very happy with the solutions they proposed and what the Minister of Finance had done for sport in Canada.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to hear what benefits are being given to amateur sport.

May 24, 1990
Point of Order
I have here a copy of a 20-page report filed by the Nepean Minor Hockey Association which has concluded that the total adjusted impact of the GST will result in thousands of dollars in over-all price increases to the annual operating budget of the MHA.
Will the minister take steps to persuade the Minister of Finance to exempt amateur sport from the GST or, better yet, to scrap the tax?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, in the GST bill proposed to the House, has put in a number of special provisions to assist non-profit amateur sport organizations. I think he has done a tremendous job for amateur sport and should be congratulated.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I am glad to see that he has returned alive from Windsor. It is something for which he deserves congratulations.
The Minister knows that the negotiations which he undertook with truckers in Windsor led to some kind of an agreement which he was finally required to promise to put in writing. Has he, in fact, sent those promises in writing to the truckers in Windsor? If he has done so, will he stand in the House and make a commitment to make them public, here and now, so that truckers all across Canada can see what the minister has decided to do?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise my hon. friend that those commitments were made public by myself and the Ontario Minister of Transport immediately after our discussions. They are already public.
I had offered to put commitments I made, with my word, in writing. We are in the process of formulating such a letter. The minute we have it formulated, then it will be in writing as well as on camera being made public by myself at about 10 o'clock this morning.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I think it is important that those commitments be publicly put to
truckers. If it does not happen, I can tell the minister, frankly, he will not see that demonstration end.

I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Quebec truckers have also decided to hold demonstrations on this issue. After this morning's discussions, will the Minister promise them that, in areas of federal jurisdiction, legal or police action will not be taken against the protesters?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: As to the
first part of my hon. friend's question, vis-a-vis Windsor, I am sorry, but I cannot think of anything more public and more on the record than a media conference with all of the reporters and the television cameras there. If there is something more public than that, I would like to know what it is and that will be done.

In the case of Montreal, I can assist the provincial Minister of Transport but any police intervention would fall under Quebec's jurisdiction.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During Question Period I referred to the fact that I believed that the Minister of the Environment, who had just resigned, was the first to serve on the Priorities and Planning Committee of Cabinet. This in fact is a serious error, because Your Honour himself was the Minister of the Environment and a member of P and P in the government of the distinguished member for Yellowknife.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, his tenure is widely remembered with great admiration by all environmentalists across Canada.
May 24, 1990

But I make the correction for two reasons. First of all, that it had to be made and, second, if I had not, my chances of speaking again in this Chamber will be greatly reduced.


Mr. Speaker:: Under all the circumstances, I shall refrain from speaking.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I would like to ask the Government House Leader to give us the legislative menu for the coming days.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be an allotted day, and I understand that the Liberal party will be leading off the debate. I would appreciate knowing what the subject is so that we might prepare.
On Monday, we will commence report stage consideration of Bill C-69, if there are report stage amendments. If not, we will proceed with third reading.
On Thesday and Wednesday it is my intention now to call Bill C-58, the Young Offenders bill, followed by Bill C-63, establishing the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, and Bill C-65, technical amendments to Customs Thriffs.
Thursday, May 31, will also be designated an allotted day.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has now designated the day, I guess we can name the subject matter. It will be on municipal infrastructure and how the federal government needs to get involved in that again.


Harvie Andre: I thank the hon. member. I hope that included in the debate will not only be how we should get involved, but how we should finance it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No comment, Mr. Speaker. We will debate that tomorrow.
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, be read the third time and passed.
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious from having heard many speeches in this House that the bill before us has brought from individuals many very deep-lying emotions. It has been a very strong debate. It has been a debate in depth, as far as the issue is concerned.
In order to understand the positions of some people, it is important to have an idea of what in their lives promotes the feelings in them that they are expressing on the floor of the House and then we will understand this debate very clearly. Obviously, those who have spoken very strongly fully understand that there is something in their background, in their thinking, and in their life's experiences with other people that has led them to feel the way that they do.
In a debate of this nature, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you would agree it is very important that common sense and coolness rule the day.
I have some very important points that I want to make. I realize that this is a very crucial debate and the feelings that I will put on the record this afternoon are very sincere and they are certainly the way I feel about this issue personally. No matter how one looks at the abortion issue, I feel in all conscience that I have no right, and I do not think that any of us has any right to unnecessarily destroy life before or after birth.
God brings us into this world and he takes us out. Sometimes it is extremely difficult to accept the death of a loved one, but there is a purpose and there must be a faith. Therefore, we must talk about this debate today in good faith, because as we discuss it we must bear in mind that we are talking about the future of young people in this country, whether or not they are going to be bom.
On the other hand, you can imagine the horrible thought, Mr. Speaker, that those loved ones that we have lost would have never been here if their father and

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
mother had believed in abortion and you would have never known them. So this begs the question, how many potential friends, how many potentially great citizens, how many community leaders, how many leaders in general, how many internationally influential people, how many professional people, how many farmers and other people in various walks of life have never had the opportunity to play their roles in life because they were not allowed to be born? That is a serious question.
In this debate, it has been mentioned that the Liberal party has no policy on the abortion issue. I for one make absolutely no apology for that, because there are two types of debates in this House that by tradition and by practice have become free votes on the floor of this House. When a political party decides that it is going to have a strict policy that everybody must obey and then calls it a free vote, it is hypocrisy.


Mr. Nicholson:: It's not true though, Len. They have not forced everybody.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The hon. member for Niagara Falls felt touchy when I said that, but I am not saying it in the sense that he is thinking about it and I want him to know that. I am saying it in the sense that no political party should be accused of not having a policy.
It is true that the government must bring forward a bill, but to say that it is the total policy and sincere belief of every member of a Cabinet is probably being inaccurate too. We know that the Minister of Justice who brought in this bill has some very strong views on it. That is her right and it is possible that the bill mirrors her feelings. Let us not argue that point. She is part of the government and has the right to bring in the bill. Every member of every party in this House has the right to vote on that bill as they see fit. We have the right to bring in amendments to it. If our amendment is accepted, that is fine. If it is not, we have to live with the parliamentary system. It is a fact of life.
So let us not get hung up on the idea that parties as a whole must have a very definite policy on these great emotional issues, that are personal and conscience issues to many members on both sides of this House. I feel very strongly about that.
The public at large also has its personal feelings and agendas. That is why we get representations from all sides of an issue such as this. That is why we have to rely, as I said at the beginning, on cool heads and common sense in an emotional debate such as this.
The old argument as to whether or not the foetus is a human life will go on ad infinitum. The foetus follows through to a human life. There is a right to be bom, in my view, and there is a right to live. We have no right to destroy life before birth any more than we have a right to destroy life after birth. I emphasize that the health of the mother is indeed a crucial decision, and a must.
One can take a look at a happy teenager today and realize that that person would never be here if the parents had decided that they would have the abortion. I remember a great moment of silence one day when speaking to a group of students here on Parliament Hill. There was one student who asked a question on the abortion issue and argued very strongly, quoting the parents, until one of the other students said: "Do you realize that with what you are proposing today, you may not have had the opportunity of being here with us in this group if your parents had exercised the philosophy that you are espousing?". These questions put forward the seriousness of this issue.
Economics has been mentioned as a factor in this debate. I feel very strongly that family planning must become a far greater priority than the economic factor. Are we going to allow economics to control whether or not people are going to be bom in this democracy, this western society of ours? Do we as human beings have the right to make that decision? Some of us in this House would never be here today, if it was not for our parents wanting to bring us into this world.
I think of my own mother and father raising a family in the depression years of the 1930s. If economics had come into consideration, I certainly would not be here today and neither would my brother or sister. We had that kind of respect in our family. My mother and father took their duties as parents seriously.
Let us be a nation of understanding. Let us be a nation of love in the sense of respect and of help to others at all times. Common sense goes a long way in solving difficult problems.
May 24, 1990

I was not born in a hospital. I was born in a farmhouse during the depression years. The next door neighbour was the midwife. If economic considerations had been brought to bear at that time, I would never have been born and would not be here today.
I was born into a family that had no money. We could hardly pay our taxes during those years. However, there was love, caring, and understanding. I look back to my childhood days and I think of my parents. I consider them to be martyrs for what they went through. With no money they raised a family. They put three square meals a day on the table. They tried to give us guidance, and they gave us direction and encouragement. I well recall that if we did not take that guidance willingly, there were other methods of encouragement that persuaded us to take that guidance, and I do not regret that either.
If there is any side of economics that we should be looking at here, it is on the tax policies for young families. They should be given greater tax allowances. There must be some consideration given for the costs of raising a family today more so than we are doing.
I can remember when family allowances first came in. I was going to high school at that time. What a great thing that was for the family. To get a cheque at the end of the month for either $6 or $7-and eventually it became $8-was a real gift. We had never witnessed that before. It relates back to the situation where the economics of a family are indeed very important. If we are not going to help them out in that route with family expenses, then we should be helping them out through the tax system at their level of income.
Love at a time when young people become pregnant is a must. Love to people who experience unwanted pregnancies is a must. It is a time for understanding. It is not a time for self-righteousness. We must give them encouragement and no hypocrisy.
I know cases where mothers and fathers of young people have taken the daughter and the child and looked after them every day until they were on their own. I have every respect for people like that, because it shows that they are willing to face up to reality, that they have a great sense of decency, and that they accept the full responsibilities of parenthood.
The earlier or later stages of pregnancy do not really have anything to do with the rights of the foetus because
Government Orders
it is on its way to becoming a full-fledged individual from the day of conception onward. It does not matter at what stage you destroy that foetus, you are still destroying that child's right to be bom and to live a fair life.
My feelings are very strong on this issue because of personal experiences. I would just like to outline some of those personal experiences. I suppose in a way, as I said earlier, I have certain prejudices.
Our first child was bom on Mother's Day 1961. After a very serious and long period for my wife, the baby was stillborn. It was a very difficult situation for a mother going full term. It also turned out later that that baby and we as a family were one of the first victims of thalidomide. I do not know how many times I counted every square of concrete on the sidewalk that encircled that hospital during those many hours. It put real emphasis in my mind as to the protection of the mother when it comes to any legislation that we are discussing, whether it be this or any other legislation.
When our second child came along, perfectly healthy, it was a great joy. When the third one came along, it was another great joy. Quite frankly, my only regret is that we do not have five or six more like them.
The old law that the Supreme Court struck down on January 28,1988 was brought in with good intent in 1969. I was also here for that debate. However, the good intent of that legislation was not always followed in spirit over the years.
I get conflicting messages on the adoption of the argument: is there a real desire to adopt babies today? Some say that the system is working, and some say it is not.
There is one thing I want to put on the record, and it is that no father should be allowed to leave mother and child economically unprotected after having brought that child into the world. That father should not be allowed, simply because he lives in another province or territory, to fail to provide for that child's keep. He has an obligation.
In that regard, there is a real economic argument for this point. Part of this whole debate should be that once parents bring a child into the world, both of them are responsible. Certainly the father should not be allowed

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
to walk out and get off scot-free. I think that is what is building a lot of resentment in our society today.
In conclusion, I would like to see strong action taken at both the federal and provincial levels on that issue.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-43. I have been following this bill since the beginning.

I have been involved with this issue for several months, starting with the caucus committee where I was privileged to serve with the hon. members for Argenteuil- Papineau, Kitchener, Surrey-White Rock, and others. I was with the legislative committee studying Bill C-43 for many weeks and grappling with this issue. Now here we are finally before the House at third reading.
I believe that this very contentious, emotional, intellectual and human issue is one that challenges people in many ways and in many parts of our country. As is well known, it is one that divides Canadians in many ways. It is a many-sided issue. I believe that first and foremost the debate in this place is not about philosophy. It is not about morality. It is about governance. It is about law, legislation, and the administration of justice in Canada. It is with respect to those matters that I wish to address myself today.
This issue of abortion in Canada represents a challenge to Canadians, one of many challenges that we have had throughout our history. It is a challenge which charges us with the task of reaching consensus in a country of great diversity. Indeed, this week of all weeks, all members present and people from coast to coast are aware of the challenge to compromise that has been an inherent part of the history of this country since its origins: those days when people like John A. Macdonald, George Etienne Cartier, Charles Tupper, and others came together to try to find the compromise that would create this great and wonderful country of ours.
Here we are again, not undoubtedly for the last time, after several occasions in Parliament debating this very contentious, social, moral and philosophical issue. As I
said, I wish to address this issue from the context of what I believe is our role and function here, not as a group of moralists but rather as a group of parliamentarians, as a group of people who have been selected by our fellow citizens to come here and seek the compromises that are the basis upon which Canada can work.
During the course of my remarks I wish to make reference to my own personal views on this matter. In so doing, I say to this House that many of the things that I would say if debate was not limited have already been said by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, who gave what I thought was a very outstanding, inspiring address on the subject. I look forward to hearing from the hon. member for Kitchener. I expect that I will be as well able to associate myself with his remarks as I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. friend for Surrey-White Rock.
I wish to focus on the legislative and political aspects of this issue because, after all, we are here to govern. We are here to seek a resolution to a contentious issue that has been with Canadians for generations but has once again been with parliamentarians for a little over two years since the previous bill relating to this subject was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.
As parliamentarians our job is to legislate for Canadians. In doing so, we have to put to ourselves a series of questions. We have to ask ourselves: What is in the best interest of Canada? We have to ask ourselves: What do Canadians want with respect to this issue? We have to take cognizance not only of the processes of Parliament and the dynamics of having things pass this place and indeed the one down the hall, but we have to take cognizance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, other legislation, and the Constitution of Canada which, like it or lump it, does impose limitations on what we can or cannot usefully do in this place.
We can stand and say that we should pass a law that says this or that or something else. But, in the final analysis, if that law does not meet the tests that will be applied when it is taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, we have failed in our responsibility as the governors and parliamentarians of this country who have been sent here to act in a responsible manner.
May 24, 1990

Dealing with contentious issues is not an easy task. Indeed, this country is faced with many challenges and contentious issues today. It is my judgment that the country is fortunate to have leadership that does not shy away from challenges, be they the economic problems of the country, the challenges of our Constitution, or a contentious social issue like the question of abortion and how it should be handled within the legislative framework of Canada. We are fortunate, in my judgment, to have the inspired leadership of the Prime Minister we have today. It is primarily through his leadership and his willingness to take on challenges that we are in the process of concluding a debate on the contentious issue of abortion.
When we began last fall to try to develop legislation, our responsibility as parliamentarians was to develop a bill that could meet the test of this House and be able to pass through Parliament. Otherwise, it would not be a useful exercise. Second, it has to satisfy the Supreme Court of Canada and, ultimately, meet the test of Canadian public opinion. That is the next question we have to look at.
I believe that the bill before us today will pass. I will vote for it and I urge all members to vote for it regardless of their personal feelings on this very contentious subject. There are people in this House, in all caucuses, who are of diametrically different opinions. Our responsibility, as a collective group of parliamentarians, is to come together and find the reasonable balance, which I think is reflected in Bill C-43.
I believe it will pass the test of the Supreme Court. There is no doubt in my mind that it will be challenged, in court but I believe it will pass that test and, ultimately, I believe it will meet the test of the people of Canada.
As the member for South Shore I can ask what the people of the South Shore want with respect to this issue. But we as parliamentarians must ask what the people of Canada want. I believe that the people of the South Shore reflect very well the views of the people of Canada with respect to this issue. There are people in the South Shore who are absolutely, unequivocally, opposed to abortion. There are people who are absolutely, unequivocally of the opinion that abortion should be
Government Orders
available on demand under any circumstances, at any time. There are people who have opinions that vary between those extremes.
I believe this bill represents a balance that will be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of Canadians. The people of the two extremes will not be satisfied and they have made that known fully, including those people, whom I admire, who stand out in front of this building every day as they have for months, fasting for life. I respect the courage, the commitment and the integrity of those people. But those people are not charged with governing Canada; we are. While I may share their sentiments, the fact of the matter is that a bill that reflects their position would be thrown out in a minute by the Supreme Court of Canada and we would have failed in carrying out our responsibilities.
I believe the overwhelming majority of Canadians want an end to the public chaos that has existed with respect to abortions in Canada. Last summer we in this country witnessed on television young people's lives in turmoil, young people going before the courts to fight out whether there should be or should not be an abortion in a particular circumstance. I think the Canadian public wants an end to that kind of thing. Canadians say that the role of government is to bring as much order as possible where there is chaos. That, I believe, is the challenge that the public has put to us. That, I believe, is what will be accomplished.
We will not satisfy everybody. We cannot satisfy everybody. Canadians are fundamentally reasonable people. That is why Canada has existed for 123 years. That is why Canadians met the challenge of the conscription crisis in 1944, the schools crisis in the 1890s, and indeed that is why I am confident Canadians will come together and resolve the constitutional crisis of 1990. That has been the essence of our history. Canadians are people who fundamentally understand the necessity of and indeed have the ability to cope with the need to compromise. That is what we have reflected in this bill before us here today.
I might take a moment or two to talk about my own feelings. When I became a candidate for public office early in the fall of 1988,1 knew that I would have to think about the issue of abortion and ask myself how I will be counted when the time comes.

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
I have never hidden my views on that subject. I consider myself a pro-lifer. I am one of those who believes, as was so eloquently articulated by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock earlier today, that life begins with conception. I believe that from the moment of conception, no matter what language is used, we are dealing with a life. I am one of those who believes that life should not be lightly taken away. I believe that one of the most basic human rights that exists in society is the right to life. Therefore, I essentially oppose abortions.
Frankly, there are circumstances under which abortions are appropriate. One has to look at abortion as an issue of conflict of interest, the interest and the rights of the mother on the one hand and the interests and the rights of the unborn child on the other.
If one is pushed to draw a line and is not constrained by things such as constitutions or charters or anything else, the appropriate line should be drawn where the self-interests of the one imposes upon the right to life of the other. If I were the draftsman or the technician, my line would recognize that where the health or life of the mother is threatened it may indeed be appropriate to have an abortion performed.
Inasmuch as you are dealing with that kind of conflict, in the final analysis I believe that abortion should not take place simply because somebody, as a matter of choice, does not wish to allow a baby to be born.
What is the best solution? There is no question that the way to deal with abortions is not through legislation. The best way to deal with abortions is to remove the need for them. It seems to me that a responsible government, in dealing with abortion, is not only going to address itself to defining a circumstance under which abortion can or cannot take place. Rather, it is going to ensure that education is in place so that unwanted pregnancies do not occur. It is going to ensure that appropriate birth control methods are readily available to those who have need of them. That is the way to deal with it.
We must ensure that the support systems exist in society so that if a young girl becomes pregnant she is not forced to give up that child because she is not in an economic circumstance where she can care for that child. Not only is she making a decision about that unborn child, she is making a decision that affects her. She may
prefer to have that opportunity but if the support services are not in place she is unable to take it.
A very good friend of mine has often said to me that there is no such thing as an unwanted child; there is somebody who wants that child. There are people in this country today who would like to have babies but cannot have their own. We have to come to grips with that as well.
In conclusion, I believe Bill C-43 achieves a balance that is reasonable. I believe it will meet the test of this House and, indeed, of the other place. I believe it will meet the test of the Supreme Court of Canada. Most important of all, I believe it will meet the test of the Canadian people. It recognizes the fundamental principle of life and when it begins. It recognizes that abortion should take place for some medical reasons. Personally, I would have preferred to have this bill more definitive, with a greater incumbency to demonstrate a medical necessity as opposed to what is, frankly, a fairly wide-open piece of legislation.
Nevertheless, the bill we have before us is unequivocally a step in the right direction. It is a piece of legislation that will serve the interests of Canadians. It is a piece of legislation that will bring an end to the chaos that has existed in this country.
Consequently, I am prepared to support this bill. I commend it to my fellow members of this House and urge all members to support it for the benefit of all Canadians.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the hon. member. The first relates to his analysis that this legislation is a matter of the "administration of justice". I put that last phrase in quotes because I think we have to talk about justice in a broader sense than just the legalistic term.
He also says that this a resolution of this contentious issue. I believe that he is fooling himself and fooling the rest of Canada with that analysis. There is not going to be a resolution of this contentious issue by recriminalizing abortion. The only means by which there is going to be a resolution of this contentious issue is to give adequate support, funding and understanding to enable women to exercise birth control and men to exercise responsibility in their relations with women. The Cana-
May 24, 1990

dian government should also participate in that in a really meaningful way.
The member talked about the public chaos of last summer. Once again, I think his analysis is totally wrong. This legislation would in no way stop injunctions of men wanting to use the court system to take control of women. There is no way that recriminalizing abortion will do that. His logic is rather strained.
I want to ask the member a question about his analysis that women are acting out of self-interest should they seek abortions. This type of logic speaks of the utter contempt in which some men in this House hold women. It makes me exceedingly angry. Women who have gone through this process and this painful decision have not done so out of self-interest. Abortion is always a tragedy.
I would commend the previous speaker to please have a little understanding. He has never experienced an unwanted pregnancy. He knows not of what he speaks. I would ask him to please address his comments with respect to Canadian women.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague opposite raises some very important points. I was taking notes to try to ensure that I address all of the points she raised. I will endeavour to do so.
Possibly she misunderstood my intent or I did not articulate my position adequately. I unequivocally recognize that an abortion is an option of the absolute last choice. I understood the hon. member to say that no woman has an abortion just for something to do, frivolously or otherwise. In no way whatsoever would I ever think that or suggest it.
I think, though, that it is incumbent on all people in Canada to act responsibly; men and women. As the member quite rightly points out, men are as much involved in the decision to create pregnancy as are women. However, the bottom line is that men cannot have abortions and I do not think it is a legitimate suggestion to therefore say that men have no interest in the subject whatsoever.
This is a subject that involves all Canadians because when we are talking about abortions we are not just talking about women. We are talking about an unborn child, about another human being. Where is the consultation process for that individual? Where is the choice
Government Orders
for that individual? That is why, in my judgment, we cannot lightly give away or abrogate the right of that individual to have his or her interest considered in the decisions that are taken.
With respect to the member's comments on the need for adequate support and funding, I believe that I addressed that point in my remarks. I feel very strongly, as I said, that the best way to deal with abortions is to eliminate them by making them unnecessary. The overwhelming number of abortions which are taking place in this country today need not take place if there was adequate support of the type the member speaks of, if there was proper education of young people. We have come a long way, but we have a long way to go.
The subject of criminalization has been a contentious issue from the beginning. It is important to recognize two things. First, people look to the Government of Canada to deal with this issue. The Government of Canada can only do so within the context of the jurisdiction provided it in the Constitution of Canada. The access to the Government of Canada came to this issue through the criminal process.
I should remind my hon. friend opposite that what is criminalized, if that is what is going on, is not abortions, but abortions held outside the law. This law, among other things, seeks to create an environment in which, in reasonable circumstances as defined in the law, abortions can take place where they should take place, under the authority of properly qualified medical practitioners.
Finally, as to the resolution of the issue, my hon. friend opposite is absolutely right. This bill will not end the debate on the subject of abortion in Canada. I never suggested that it would. I do not recall having suggested that. I doubt that any member of the House would suggest that this bill, or for that matter any other bill, would end debate on the subject of abortion in the country.
I suggested that this bill represents a reasonable compromise between diametrically opposite positions. It is a reasonable compromise that will be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of Canadians who fundamentally are not on the extreme of any given issue but are people who learn to understand. One might say it is the Canadian way of understanding, the way of reasonable compromise. That is what this bill is. For those people,

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
the vast majority of Canadians, this will mean a resolution to the issue, as I indicated.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in a number of circumstances, the hon. member referred to the test of the Supreme Court and how, in his analysis of Bill C-43, it would meet the test of the Supreme Court.
Would the hon. member state for us what his view is of the test of the Supreme Court and how Bill C-43 will specifically meet that legal test?


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stand here and pretend to be an expert in jurisprudence. Nevertheless, I will not hesitate to comment on the subject.
The lines were essentially drawn by the decisions that have been brought down in the Morgentaler case, the Daigle case, and others. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you do not want a 45-minute legal dissertation from me, which I would otherwise be delighted to present. But, essentially, those decisions stated, first, that Parliament should create a law. Second, they stated that, within that law, Parliament should make provision for women to have access to abortions in Canada and that the law should create an entitlement for women to have abortions in Canada. I prefer the word "entitlement" to "access". The access is something that is determined within the health services of the provinces.
At the same time, the decisions indicated that there is an incumbency on Parliament to take cognizance of the rights of the unborn. Therein it seems to me that the court has told this Parliament to find a middle road between the two positions. The courts have very clearly indicated that a choice on either of those extremes would not be acceptable to them. The courts have made it perfectly clear that we must find a middle road. That, I submit, is what we have attempted to do with Bill C-43.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. At the outset I would like to state that I am opposed to this bill. I will persuade the rest of the House to take my position and I will give you the reasons why I will persuade them.
Even those who are opposed to abortion should understand that this bill is a political bill to deal with a social problem. It attempts to find a political solution to a problem that does not have a political solution.
If a member on either side of the House argues that in their opinion and moral conviction life begins at conception, then they cannot vote for this bill. It is sanctimonious cant to suggest that somehow this bill is a compromise and will allow them to abandon their principles and argument about the sanctity of life because the state somehow, with this piece of legislation, has defined when life is sanctified and when it is not. That is hypocrisy. It does not serve the debate that is necessary for the public to come to some acceptable resolution socially about this problem.
This government has set the debate back by using a political instrument to cover itself within the polls, rather than taking a responsible position as a government either for or against the right of a woman to make a choice as to whether or not she should have an abortion.
Those who hold to the argument-and I do not dispute their right to do it, I hold to a different argument-that life begins at conception cannot morally justify a vote for this legislation. It does a great deal of damage to those people who are sincere in holding their position-just as I am sincere in holding mine-that life begins at conception. It is a mockery of that argument to stand up in the Chamber and say they believe that and then allow themselves to vote for this bill.
Having said that, I want to outline why, after wrestling with my own conscience about this situation, I have decided to vote against the bill and why I am pro-choice.
There is indeed merit in the argument about when life begins. It is a human decision based upon the scientific and religious evidence in front of us. We have to make that decision in true conscience. I do not make my decision frivolously. It is based on true conscience because of an accumulated series of experiences I have had in my life through my chosen profession as a social worker.
I was 22 years old when I had my first caseload of children at the Children's Aid Society of Vancouver. In those days I was responsible for 78 children. This private agency hired me at the age of 22 to be, in a sense, a substitute parent for those 78 children. I had graduated
May 24, 1990

from university and it was presumed, because I had four years of university education, that I was somehow qualified to be a surrogate parent for those 78 children.
Nothing could have been further from the truth. I was not prepared to deal with the real problems of those children. All the book learning I had relative to the needs of those children was absolutely invalid in terms of the practical situation with which I was faced.
Most of the children for whom I was responsible had an absence of love. They were unwanted children. They were not desired by their mothers. It was an accident of fate as a result of a situation that existed in the country at that time.
You could not even buy condoms in a drugstore when I was a teenager. The attitude of the state at that time was to bury its head in the sand. Condoms were not even discussed. The only reason we discuss birth control or access to information on birth control is the threat of AIDS. What logic and reason could not do to our society, AIDS has forced us to do.
Now that we have had an open discussion about the problems of sexually-transmitted diseases, we are talking about preventing sexually-transmitted diseases without even putting it in the context of human sexuality and human physiology.
Those 78 children for whom I was responsible were disadvantaged from day one. They had no opportuntiy parallel to any normal child out there. My colleague made the bland statement: "Well, don't worry, there is somebody out there who will love the child". Would that be true!
Today, caseloads are not 78 children. They are 250 or 300 children per social worker and they are just as inadequate in dealing with those as they were in my day.
How many trained social workers with a Masters degree are in the line carrying a caseload? Very few. How many are there in the age group of 45 to 55, when they have accumulated at least some life experience to make some sensible judgments about the tremendous problems that are in front of them? Very few. We still have denied the fact that we reject children in our society. We reject those unwanted children in archaic
Government Orders
social systems that guarantee us a population in our prisons and in our mental institutions.
What chance does a child have if that child is unwanted and shuffled along to an agency with the hope that someone will adopt the child? In the argument of the previous two members I heard speak, economics has nothing to do with it. Like blazes, Mr. Speaker.
However, let us assume that economics had nothing to do with it and that wealthy people would be benevolent enough to embrace these children to their bosom and raise them. Money does not guarantee the raising of a good child. If there is an absence of love in a relationship between a man and a woman, it does not matter whether they live in a house with a dirt floor or in a mansion in one of the most expensive suburbs. That kid is headed for trouble.
Do we do any pre-marital counselling in the country? Not a whit. On a basis that the state says that we should-


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: That's not true.


Rob Nicholson: Only if the state pays for it?


David Barrett: I am glad I have their attention. In the province of British Columbia, we asked the religious community to make itself available on a voluntary basis for pre-marital counselling of those couples who chose to take it. They responded positively and we initiated a program. Then I said that we should delay giving marriage licences for a six-week period. If the state is going to give permission to people to get married, then the state should have some evidence that they voluntarily had pre-marital counselling.
What do we do with people who drive cars? The state requires not only that they take lessons in driving a car but that they pass an examination before they get behind the wheel. The state even goes further and requires that they drive on the proper side of the road.
What an interference of freedom of choice. Why in the heck does the state have the right to examine whether or not you can drive a car? Why does the state have the right to tell you what side of the road to drive on? Why does the state do that? It does so because it is in the role of social order, to ensure that there is a sense of public safety and discipline in the state.

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the state feels that secure about requiring a licence before you drive a car and telling you what side of the road to drive on, the state at least can make birth control information and pre-marital counselling available to make sure that we are not raising a generation of ignorant children who have no awareness of what human sexuality is all about.
When I grew up I was supposed to learn, as a male, about human sexuality by hanging around the street. When I was a teenager, every young man was supposed to be an expert in sexual matters and every girl was supposed to be a virgin. I never knew how, socially, we were to reach that desired goal in our male-female roles unless two people tangoed. There was a tacit admission in our society that sex did not exist. Yet, males were supposed to be experts and women were supposed to be virgins. The absurd hypocrisy of our society in dealing with human sexuality knows no limits and the progeny of that kind of ignorance fills up our institutions and mental hospitals.
I spent five years working in jails. In almost every single instance of young boys whom I worked with, there was an abysmal lack of information about human physiology and also an absence of love. They were bitter and hateful simply because they were not wanted. Now if the state says that you cannot have an abortion, then the state has a moral right to ensure-just as they do with drivers' licences or telling people what side of the road to drive on-that every child has the maximum opportunity to reach any potential level of success they can. We do not.
Look at our poverty rolls. Look at people on welfare. I have yet to hear a significant voice in the pro-life community demand a bill of rights for children in this country, and demand a guarantee of minimum services for those children. If they put the same amount of energy in their argument against abortion into the defence of those children who are already born, I would feel a little more comfortable.
The absence of child care in the institutions we provide, the scandals we see in the housing residences we have for young boys and girls, is shocking. In my own province, Willingdon School for Girls and Brandon Lake
School for Boys guaranteed a succeeding class of occupants for Kingston penitentiary and the British Columbia penitentiary. At one time 60 per cent of the occupants of the women's penitentiary in Kingston were graduates of the same Willingdon School for Girls.
There is a lot of hypocrisy going on and I want to address myself partly to that. Where in the world are those screaming battalions of voices and placards out in front of this building, demanding that basic child services be guaranteed by law for every child in this country? Where are they? Where are those screaming-meemies who are determined to tell every woman what she must or must not do about her body, or her choice? Where are those screaming-meemies when it comes to the number of children in this country who are going to school ill-housed and ill-fed?
I hear this pious clap-trap about love and understanding and commitment. It is b.s., Mr. Speaker. And you know what b.s. is? That's the Blarney Stone, Mr. Speaker-I do not want anyone to misinterpret what I am saying.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is an absence of commitment to children in this country.
Now I want to deal with the choice of some woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy. Can you tell me what the hell the state has to do with the decision that she must make? Can you tell me what role this Chamber, a group of citizens representatives of all Canadians-and Lord help us, sometimes I think it is below the average of most Canadians-has got to do with telling that women, who is a victim of incest or rape, that she must carry the child to term? Fie on your head! Nonsense! Suggesting that any young woman, a victim of incest or rape, must carry a child to term is the most horrendous kind of scenario that one could possibly expect, and I think in this sense it is male-dominance visiting those attitudes on a woman in that situation.
I find it incredible that we are faced with this bill. I deeply respect those people in this House who say they are going to vote against it because of moral conviction and their belief that life starts at conception. I respect them deeply. And I hope that they, in turn, respect my point of view. But I do not respect the hypocrisy of those who are rationalizing that this bill somehow solves the problem.
May 24, 1990

Since you know my point of view and how I am going to vote and why, I make an appeal to this House. When this debate is over will we hear again about children in need in this country? When this debate is over will members get up and demand that the government set national standards for child care in this country? Will we hear a debate in this Chamber that no caseload of children in a child care agency, either private or public, goes over 30 or 40, just as we expect in classrooms? Will we hear a demand in this Chamber that never again will we set up community based and funded homes where children are placed in unsupervised situations and assaults on those children take place? Do you think this is new? It has gone on generation after generation after generation in this country and I dare say, unfortunately, it is probably still going on in some instances in this country.
We still jail children in this country, Mr. Speaker. Go and take a look at your own province's set-up for dealing with "juvenile delinquents". Check out what we do with children when they come into court. Find out what is going on day after day in a court system that denies children the same basic protection that any adult will get in any court situation in the country.
Hypocrisy reeks through this whole debate. Unless there is a guarantee that every child in this country is given some basic elementary human rights and protections from the law, the persuasion of my argument is going to fall on deaf ears. I have emptied the Chamber with my eloquence.
Having had the debate, it is incumbent on this Chamber, regardless of the side we take on this bill, to see that the government initiates legislation to deal with the companion problems of what is happening in our society. I appeal to members to understand that there are unwanted children in our society. Someone is responsible for them and that someone is us, the collectivity of the state that makes the laws. We are morally responsible to ensure that those children have a decent chance at life.
When this bill passes away, I would like to hear the sanctimonious voices that argue against it or for it, based on protecting their own political rear ends, focus on the leftover problem of the neglected children in our society who need our attention and care. I thank you for listening, Mr. Speaker.
Government Orders


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks about sanctimony. He said: "Hypocrisy reeks through this whole debate". It is not often that I agree with the hon. member but, with respect to this particular statement, I agree.
Coming from a member of Parliament who belongs to a political party that speaks about choice and the freedom to choose, the member talks about choice. Yet, in his own political party-and you speak about hypocrisy and sanctimony-his colleagues do not have the choice to vote in this House according to their own conscience. The party says that if you are a member of the New Democratic Party, then you must vote in this particular way, regardless of what your own morality tells you, regardless of where you stand on the issue. Members of the New Democratic Party are not permitted to vote according to their own conscience.
The member speaks of hypocrisy, but he and others in his party participated in the capital punishment debate. I recall it well. The member was not in the House a few years ago when we debated that issue. I recall very vividly and specifically his colleagues standing up, one after another, talking about the sanctity of life, about how important it was to protect life and how morally wrong it is, for the Government of Canada to destroy human life through the process of capital punishment.
These same members-and you speak of hypocrisy-now argue a different point. Now they no longer argue how sacred and how much sanctity there is to human life, all of a sudden they approach it from a different perspective.
In view of the position of his party; first, can he explain why members of his party do not have the choice to vote according to their own consciences? Second, I would like to ask the hon. member to explain very clearly where he stands on the issue of when life begins? He took others to task for suggesting that life begins at the moment of conception. In his view, given his position-


John R. Rodriguez: Let him answer.


John V. Nunziata: You will have a moment to answer. The hon. member says prior to birth. There ought not be a law in Canada to recognize life before birth. Is the hon. member arguing and suggesting that human life begins at the moment of birth? If not, how can he reconcile his

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
position on the issue of abortion with the fact that he must agree that life begins at some point before birth?


David Barrett: It is very hard to follow my predecessor's logic. First of all, I will deal with his question about the votes in my party. I want to make this very clear, I would never belong to a party that does not allow everybody, in true conscience, to make their own decisions.


John V. Nunziata: That's nonsense.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that that is nonsense. I do not question the integrity of the members of his party. I believe every member who comes to this Chamber votes in true conscience. No party tells anybody what to do because, on that basis, it would hardly be worth our being here in the first place. If you presume that our party tells people how to vote, come to a caucus meeting some time and enjoy the experience.
Having said that, the next question is about the beginning of life. I do not believe it happens at conception. I spent six years in Catholic universities; I studied with the Jesuits; it was an incredible experience. Their position and my position are different. They worked on me for six years, I worked on them for six years. It was a draw, Mr. Speaker.
My opinion is different from that hon. member's. If he suggests life begins at the moment of conception then I have to accept, on the basis of that argument, that all those sperm that are being wasted are killers. All those sperm that have not performed their duty must be corralled by law and fined or locked up for not completing their job. We cannot have loose sperm running around this country, without completing their job. If life begins at conception, all those sperm are acting immorally by not performing their task, as predesigned under that theory. Now, I do not want to be a sperm rounder-upper, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be a sperm counter, but if you follow that argument logically, then we can go into menopause as well and say that every month there has been a natural abortion, and save me from that argument. That rigidity is so stupid that it defies-


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: What is your position?


David Barrett: I am not God, neither are you. You have to make your own decision and at what point you make that decision.


John V. Nunziata: What is your view? Are you afraid to state your view?


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, if that member wants my view, rent me a hall, gather me a crowd, and I will tell him my view, how hypocritical it is to take the line of argument that member takes.


John V. Nunziata: You're afraid to answer the question, Barrett. You're chicken.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, even the church had a different position 130 years ago. Read your own history, my friend. It is a man-made decision and man-altered decision. I do not tell you what to do, I do not play God and you do not play God either. That kind of sanctimonious camp, especially for women, telling them what they have to do, is frankly absurd.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me participate in this debate and I want to thank my hon. friend who is so wrong but so sure of himself.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the way the member was talking about sperm and knowing the opposition that the NDP have to banks, I am sure that they are opposed to sperm banks too.
I listened to the member's speech with attention, and he kept impeccably intact his long tradition of having a stirring speech on a subject that was totally or almost totally unrelated to the subject before us, unless he is suggesting that to deal with all the housing problems, we ought to have abortions freely available. And to deal with all of the other social issues in life, we ought to have abortions freely available. If that is his solution to all the social problems, then he certainly misled us in his speech. He centred on one particular subject that fascinated me, because I have wondered about this for many years. He said when he was premier he invited the community to have a test for marriages, I thought I heard him say that.


David Barrett: Pre-counselling.


Benno Friesen: Pre-counselling or some kind of test. I would like to ask him how the community responded to him. What happens if people flunk?


An hon. member:: 
Benno Friesen: I am fascinated by the suggestion. I have often been intrigued by the fact that people have to take a course to drive a car, which is a lot simpler than maintaining a solid marriage.


An hon. member:: All the more reason for some instruction.


Benno Friesen: Right. I would like him to answer that question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: I think the hon. member should use the next 60 seconds very carefully.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I had difficulty in convincing my own colleagues in the House that legislation would be appropriate before issuing a marriage licence so I asked for voluntary participation. I asked the religious communities if they would participate, and they responded positively. We set up a family life council in the province of British Columbia that had the backing and the role of the religious community.
I am very sorry that my successor, the then minister of welfare, was the one who killed that program, the Hon. William Vander Zalm, the great spokesperson for family life. However, the program was reinitiated after public demand.
Referring to the consequence of it, it is not a question of asking people to write a test. It was a commitment from the religious community that I admire and respect on a non-sectarian basis to participate in encouraging and giving an opportunity to those people who had convictions or were seeking some guidance to discuss them with someone who was knowledgeable in that field. I was looking to cut down the number of divorces in our society. I am still looking for a way to solve that problem. I do not have the magic answer. However, I wanted to expand the options available to couples who were serious about their marriage vows to talk to somebody on a whole range of subjects before they went into marriage.
Furthermore, I would hope that such programs would be encouraged today. I conclude by making the same appeal. There are children out there who need basic services. Can we put the same emotion into an argument to ensure that those services are provided?


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I have struggled with how I should vote on this bill at third reading. As a legislator I accept my duty of legally
Government Orders
protecting the most vulnerable of all human beings within our society: the unborn.
Today, as I stand in this House, I appeal to my colleagues to contemplate the historical importance of this moment. We are doing what we have been elected to do: to make law. We have had no law since January 1988. For the previous 19 years we had a law that did not adequately protect the unborn. I have been a part of this continuing struggle since my involvement as a hospital board member in Kitchener for nine years and as a member of Parliament from 1979 to 1980 and again since 1984. I have submitted private members' bills on this topic and have participated in every debate on abortion and most recently as a member of the legislative committee on Bill C-43.
Earlier today we heard two excellent presentations by two other members of that committee. We heard a moving and inspiring speech by the member for Surrey-White Rock. We also heard an excellent address from the hon. member for South Shore.
Since the Morgentaler decision of the Supreme Court in January 1988 our country has been without a law on abortion. For many, the debate on what should be done about abortion has been based on the assumption that the only law which would be constitutionally acceptable to fill this vacuum is one that is based on the gestational approach. This approach would in effect guarantee abortion on demand for up to 16 weeks or 20 weeks.
The present bill is not what I would like it to be. To develop a law on the assumption of gestation would violate my fundamental understanding of life and that of the world-renowned scientists such as Dr. Jerome Le-Jeune who appeared before our committee.
My colleagues and I have worked long and hard to change the kind of bill the government would introduce into the House from one that permits abortion on demand for up to 20 weeks to one that protects life from conception.
I am pleased that Bill C-43 has implicitly accepted that life affirming approach to law and has rejected the gestational approach. After an all-party legislative committee examined the proposed legislation and after this House last night turned down amendments which would have strengthened the legal protection of the unborn, we are now faced with the key question of saying yes or no to

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
Bill C-43 unamended. Now I have come to this moment of declaring my position and my reasons for that position.
I will be supporting Bill C-43 as it stands at third reading. My reasons are as follows. First, if this bill passes it will signify an important shift in the debate since the Morgantaler decision of January 1988. The gestational approach, which even the Law Reform Commission in its 1989 study paper offered as the only way to reach a compromise, was rejected.
With the passage of this bill, arguments on the taking of the life of the unborn can no longer be based on the assumption that life before birth can be taken at will. Why? Because this bill has in effect rejected the proabortion ideology. If this bill is passed, future debates should focus on the reasons abortion should or should not be allowed.
Since January 1988 we have been forced to argue why the unborn should be protected. If this bill passes, the operative assumption is that life of the unborn is indeed deserving of some legal protection from conception. Now the burden lies with those who favour abortion to provide medically valid reasons it should be allowed. Therefore we have begun to build on the principle that life must be protected from conception.
Second, there is at least an attempt to deal with the very difficult challenge of protecting both the unborn child and the mother. While that attempt is incomplete the bill recognizes the existence of two lives. By so doing, the legislation recognizes a reality which cannot be and indeed must not be avoided.
The third reason I support this bill is that abortion is again in the Criminal Code and subject to a criminal sanction in the case of unlawful abortion. Let us not underestimate the value this communicates to the Canadian public. It makes a statement to our nation that abortion is no longer regarded by law makers as a simple or casual medical procedure. Abortion is again a criminal act unless it meets the requirements of the law and the standards of the medical profession. Law not only serves to contain unacceptable behaviour but also serves as a guide upholding values for all to see and to respect. As the Law Reform Commission stated:
The criminal law is our nation's fundamental statement of public policy-ultimately the criminal law is a mirror of what we are; it reflects our commitment or lack of commitment, to human dignity and equality. The law does not exist for the sole or primary purpose of punishing illicit acts. It exists, as an expression, in a broad sense,
of the kind of people we are. It does not merely regulate our behaviour, it articulates and symbolizes our values and beliefs.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court will be required to recognize the principles of justice reflected in this bill. As well, this bill calls on the medical profession to deal with the life of both the unborn child and the mother. Doctors are expected to exercise their professional responsibility to the best of their ability, recognizing that they must consider the human right to life of both patients.
Finally, this bill provides us with a foundation on which we can build in the future. By rejecting the assumption and approach of gestation and by implicitly recognizing the protection of life from conception, we now have a basis on which to build stronger protection for the unborn. We can then better balance the mother's right to the security of her person and the state's interest in the protection of the foetus. However, there is a very serious weakness in this bill. The definition of health is far too broad and far too inclusive. This major weakness created such difficulties for me, to the point of almost voting against the bill at third reading. However I have come to recognize that the bill at least points us in the right direction.
Many ask if this bill will save any lives. I believe it could. Cardinal Carter commented:
If the medical profession takes its new responsibilities seriously, if the attorneys general of our provinces apply the law as it is written, if our law officers, particularly our judges, enforce the prescriptions, we may save some lives.
Surely, if doctors took their responsibilities seriously under this bill individually and collectively, they could ensure that good medical practice according to their own medical standards and professional ethics would not permit some of their colleagues to disregard all that they have been taught. Through peer pressure and the enforcement of professional ethics, doctors could stop the vast majority of abortions that have absolutely no medical validity because they are socio-economic in origin, as they themselves testified and admitted before the committee.
For me, this bill is not a denial of my principles. I am not for a moment forsaking the principles which have guided and will continue to guide me in my ongoing struggle to protect the unborn. I am engaged in a long and difficult struggle for justice for the unborn. To vote for this bill is therefore part of a long-term strategy to
May 24, 1990

help bring about public respect for life at all stages of development.
In October 1989 my colleagues and I turned the Department of Justice and the cabinet from a gestational approach. Indeed, for me to vote against this bill now would be a compromise. It would be an admission of defeat, an opting for no law, and a cop-out. This would be an abdication of my responsibility as a law maker.
When Bill C-43 was debated at report stage my colleagues and I introduced amendments. Frankly, I am deeply disappointed that none of them passed. We pressed for at least three amendments.
The first one would have added the word "seriously" before the word "threatened".
The second one would have required the physician to first conclude that there is no other medically acceptable treatment to alleviate the health risk.
The third amendment would have stipulated that the definition of the word "health" specifically exclude psychological considerations which the Minister of Justice before the committee interpreted to include socioeconomic factors.
If these three amendments had been accepted they would have changed this bill into one which would have adequately responded to the Supreme Court's invitation to Parliament to balance the mother's rights to security of her person and society's interest in the protection of the foetus.
We are still making progress. In advising pro-lifers Dr. J. C. Wilke, President of the American Right to Life Movement said:
Their choice is either to be unrealistic and seek legislation they are sure to lose and then watch the holocaust continue, or realistically pass the best possible measure, stopping (some) of the killing now, and then come back another year and save some more lives-with the passing of years it has become painfully obvious that we are not going to stop abortion in one single step. All responsible pro-life leaders accept that it will have to be done step by step.
With this bill we are taking one small yet important step today for the unborn. My prayer is that many more steps will follow. To give up on the bill and to do nothing is to stand idly by as tens of thousands of lives per year are snuffed out. I personally do not see that stance as a
Government Orders
form of higher Christian integrity. We must work to restrain evil and save as many lives as we can whenever we can.
Some would argue that no law is better than this law. I believe they are mistaken for the following two reasons. First, we would be missing an opportunity to use the fulcrum of law to shift the influence of law toward justice for the unborn.
Second, it will be years before another government will attempt to write a law on abortion. As a legislator today, I cannot say: "Let's kill this bill so that hopefully in the future we can do better". That is compromising my task today by hiding behind the skirts of an unknown future and that, to me, is not leadership.
Furthermore, Cardinal Carter stated: "We are pleased that we will have a law, even one so imperfect".
Archbishop Ambrosic, who recently succeeded Cardinal Carter, stated on April 14, 1990:
Abortion is always wrong. We can never be at peace with a law that permits abortion. Having said this, I ought to add that in my opinion, some law is better than no law. As it stands, the proposed law at least criminalizes abortion although I would like to make it much more restrictive than it is.
Further, I agree with the Law Reform Commissions's testimony to the committee. I would like to quote from what Justice Linden said to us:
Bill C-43 does not solve all the problems of unwanted pregnancy. It is not meant to. It is just meant to solve a legal problem, a small aspect of this general problem. For a long-term solution, we need better education, better reproductive counselling, and greater social and economic support for child care. We need more help for women who get pregnant as a result of failed contraception, or because of incest or rape. We need to ensure that pregnant women have a real choice about their future, so that abortion does not seem to them to be the only answer. We need as a nation to be more compassionate and supportive of families, of mothers and their children. So let us recognize that Bill C-43 is only one step, albeit an important one, in dealing with this complex problem.
William Wilberforce fought for 19 years as a member of Parliament in England to end the slave trade, and for another 26 years to end slavery itself within the British Empire. Throughout all those years he never compromised on his ultimate goal and principles. However, he

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
did make concessions in timing and he did vote yes to incremental improvements. He even agreed to pay slave traders money out of the public purse to provide an extra six inches of sleeping space on their ships carrying the slaves. But he did not compromise on his ultimate goal and principles.
Therefore, I say to my pro-life friends, let us keep our eyes clearly on the goal of achieving a real balance which recognizes both the mother's right to the security of her person and society's interest in the true protection of the unborn. In the meantime, let us say yes to whatever moves us toward that goal, even if the steps may seem very small indeed. At least they are steps in the right direction.
Today, we on the pro-life side of this debate, do not have the numbers, but we are strong enough to defeat any gestational law. We are strong enough to produce a bill that includes abortion in the Criminal Code. We are strong enough to make sure that there are some criminal sanctions against unlawful abortion and that the principle within that bill implicitly protects human life from conception or, more technically, from implantation.
We are also strong enough to ensure that by passing this bill we are taking the first step toward a stronger and better law in the future. Further, we are teaching that abortion is a serious moral issue and that society at large, and doctors in particular, should start acting responsibly. Our laws and our lives should express our commitment to compassion and justice for the lives of the unborn and their parents. This is my commitment. That is what I will work for as long and as best I can.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I happen to agree with respect to the issue itself and that life must be protected from the moment of conception. However, I have very serious difficulties in accepting the reasons why he and others who consider themselves pro-life are supporting this piece of legislation.
He speaks of incremental gain. He feels that it is better to have this bill than no bill at all. I suggest to the hon. member that if this bill carries, and it appears that in fact it will carry on Tuesday, then the likelihood of a new bill or changes to this bill being introduced in the foreseeable future are negligible in that the government
today, and perhaps future governments, will not feel the pressure necessary to address again the issue of abortion.
As well, I would like to say to him in all sincerity that when we are talking about rights surely he would agree that rights are rights. If we agree that life begins at the moment of conception, how then can he and others who consider themselves pro-life support a bill, which in my view is a fraudulent piece of legislation, that would allow abortion on demand, a bill that differentiates between life after birth and life before birth, in that if a life after birth is taken there follows a specific penalty?
In my view there is absolutely no adequate protection for life in this particular bill. The penalty is different for the taking of a life before birth, whether it be an hour before birth, a month before birth or three months before birth.
How can he reconcile his views with a bill that will, for all intents and purposes, allow abortion on demand? If one truly and sincerely believes in life and the sanctity of life, then how can one support a bill that treats life before birth differently than life after birth?


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to try and respond to the questions raised by the member for York South-Weston.
The comment he made about incremental gain is correct. I am saying that we are at least gaining something. We are gaming a law. In the first place it is in the Criminal Code. It has a criminal sanction. It implicitly recognizes that there is a need to protect the unborn child, from conception.
He said that the government may not feel the pressure now if we pass this bill, and therefore, we will not be able to do anything further. I know the member was listening to me. He will recall what I said about one example from the British Parliament concerning William Wilberforce who worked for 19 years to end the slave trade, then 26 years more to end slavery itself. That is a long, long time.
If someone had come to him after the first attempt and said: "You are not going to get it. Give up", or if someone had come to him and said: "You are making a slight concession here. You cannot do that. Go for all or nothing," would he have ended it? No. He had to keep his eye on the ultimate goal and keep working at every step possible to get something. That is what we have to do.
May 24, 1990

The member asked if the government was not going to feel the pressure. That never stopped him before the law was struck down, or since it was struck down by the court from bringing in his own private members' bills. It did not prevent me from bringing in private members' bills. It did not prevent any of us from speaking in support of those private members' bills. We will continue to do it. I hope that he does that. I intend to do that. We have to keep working at this.
The question now is whether or not we are really acting responsibly as lawmakers if we say that it is better to have no law with no restraints, meaning full abortion on demand for at least another four years, plus the two we have already just passed as a minimum. I say no.
However, if this was a gestational bill before us, then I would say its principles are wrong. At least the principles in this bill are implicitly going the right way. That is why I say build on the little bit of good that is there. Therefore we will have a law. Therefore we implicitly say something must be protected. Therefore we are teaching society, and there is value.
Let us start doing what we did in terms of smoking. For many years smoking was perfectly acceptable. It was legitimate. Then some of us started to learn in our health classes that it is not acceptable. As a health and physical education teacher I taught that. Then we worked hard. I worked hard as a hospital board member to get rid of it. Finally, everybody started to listen to the evidence. Then we finally started to see some change.
Let us bring in a law that says it is criminally wrong. Let us now use that to teach. Let us use all the information that people like Dr. Jerome LeJeune gave us. Let us keep reminding people that they are dealing with life from conception.
Just as we got society to turn around on smoking, maybe we will begin to get society to turn around on this issue and start doing what I know the hon. member wants, what I want as well.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made comments about a member of Parliament in the British Parliament who
Government Orders
worked for years to ensure an end to slavery. It was a laudable goal, and he was eventually successful.
I want to say that women in Canada have struggled for 20 years to get abortion out of the Criminal Code of Canada. Women have struggled long and hard to get abortion out of the Criminal Code of Canada.
I want to ask him how he feels about the majority of Canadian women who see this kind of legislation, and who see the kinds of remarks that he has made in this House today, as really insulting to them. Women do not take this decision lightly. Women struggle. Women search within their own souls and their own consciences before they make a decision to have an abortion.
How can he justify this criminal legislation and his attitude of the state and he having the right to decide when and if a woman will have a child?


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby mentions the fact that there are women in Canada who do not want to see abortion in the Criminal Code. That is correct. There are also some men who do not want to see it in the Criminal Code. But there are also many other women who do want to see it in the Criminal Code. She did not mention that.
I presented in this House a petition with the signatures of women only-over 220,000 signatures-from across this country who wanted a law that would protect the unborn. What about those 220,000 women?
What about the many other women in Canada who say that according to all the available medical evidence we are dealing with two lives when we talk about abortion? We are dealing with the life of the mother and the life of the child within the mother.
I always find it incredulous to say that we have to balance those interests as though the mother somehow or other has to balance the choice of whether or not her own child within her has a right to life. My goodness, that is a denial of everything a mother wants. It makes no sense.
We know that in the sense of where there is a case of real threat to the mother's life, then there is a need to ask: "Is there a time when we take one life to protect another life?" There is then a legitimate role to play. The Supreme Court invited us to play that role. In fact, it said to us that the precise point in the development of that foetus is up to Parliament to decide. We have. This

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
bill, even in its weak form, states that it implicitly starts at conception. That is why I say, let us take at least the good in this bill and let us vote for it so that we can build on it and keep working in the future to improve it.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, in the brief time that I have to discuss Bill C-43 tonight, I would like to divide my remarks into three distinct categories.
First, I would like to state my position with respect to this issue. Perhaps a better way of putting it is to say that I will restate my position on this particular issue.
Second, I would like to discuss Bill C-43 and the inherent flaws that I see in it.
Third, I would like to make some responsive remarks to the speeches made by some other members and some of the points raised by them. I will then, of course, draw a conclusion.
My position is fairly clear. There is no greater right than the right to live. It is upon this right that all other rights rest. In that context, we have to look at what we are talking about when we speak about Bill C-43. Of course, we are speaking about abortion.
What is an abortion? With the greatest of respect, that is the question so many members of the House refuse to come to grips with. Precisely what is an abortion? If we look in the dictionary we find that abortion is defined as the procuring of premature delivery for the purpose of destroying offspring. I emphasize those words, "for the purpose of destroying offspring". That is the point. For me, human life begins at conception. Of course, if you have a human life and you have an abortion-a medical procedure designed to destroy offspring-you are clearly destroying human life.
Because an abortion kills a human being, it is wrong. It must be prevented, just as we prevent the killing of all other human beings, including convicted criminals. The reason the House is in this turmoil with respect to this issue is the overwhelming revulsion of society about the topic of abortion.
If we were not talking about the killing of a human being, but about something equivalent to cutting your hair or nails, or to mowing the lawn, no one would be upset. That is not what we are talking about. We are
talking about the destruction of human life. That is what gets people into the state in which they have to air their grievances and about which they feel that there is no position other than their own.
That is why we have to come to grips as a country and as a Parliament with the fundamental question. We have to admit to ourselves that an abortion destroys a human being.
Why would I say that there is a revulsion in society? Let us look at the medical profession. We know that the Canadian Medical Association has approximately 45,000 member doctors. Out of that membership of 45,000 we know that there are approximately 800 who will do abortions. That is 1.7 per cent of the doctors in the country.
We further know from the Canadian Medical Association that out of these 800 doctors only about 325 do the majority of abortions. That is 0.72 per cent of the doctors in the country.
I ask rhetorically: Why is it that an infinitesimal percentage of the medical doctors in the country will perform an abortion? I will provide an answer. It is because those doctors know scientifically, from medical school and biology class, that an abortion destroys a living entity.
I would like to move on to address the flaws, as I see them, of Bill C-43, and, in doing so, to speak directly to those members of Parliament who oppose the allowing of abortions and yet consider that it is appropriate to vote in favour of Bill C-43.
This morning the Minister of Justice declared that this bill protects the foetus. We heard the member for Kitchener say time and time again how this bill implicitly-and he emphasized the word "implicitly", not explicitly but implicitly-protects the foetus.
The Minister of Justice said that this bill protects the foetus. I would like to say two things in that regard. Why is it appropriate for our society to protect the foetus? It can only be because the foetus is a human being. If the foetus is not a human being, why protect it? Why should we be involved in this debate at all? Of course the foetus is a human being. It needs protection. The government
May 24, 1990

recognizes that it needs protection. The Minister of Justice says that this bill protects the foetus.
With the greatest of respect, I say that this bill does not protect the foetus. It will not stand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is why I asked the member for South Shore what was the test of the Supreme Court of Canada. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the test of the Supreme Court of Canada is.
I have in my hand the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Daigle case. I refer specifically to a section in which the Supreme Court is dealing with the Quebec Charter of Rights and the argument that a foetus is protected thereunder, and I quote:
In our view the Quebec Charter, considered as a whole, does not display any clear intention on the part of its framers to consider the status of a foetus. This is most evident in the fact that the Charter lacks any definition of "human being" or "person".
This bill lacks any definition of human being or person. Yet, because it is in the Criminal Code, the only definition of human being or person contained in the Criminal Code provides that one becomes a human being when one is bom. That is the definition of a human being in which this bill is being incorporated. How that protects the foetus is beyond me.
In any event, note that the Supreme Court finds that there is no specific definition of human being or person. The decision continues:
One can ask why the Quebec legislature, if it had intended to accord a foetus the right to life, would have left the protection of this right in such an uncertain state -If the legislature had wished to grant foetuses the right to life, then it seems unlikely that it would have left the protection of this right to such happenstance.
That is precisely the point. That is precisely, in my view, what the Supreme Court of Canada is going to say with regard to this bill.
There is a definition of health in the bill, a very comprehensive definition of health, but there is no definition of foetus, no definition of human being, and no definition of what it is that this bill is attempting to protect and why. That failure is a fatal flaw in this bill. In my view, it will not pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has stated clearly in the passages that I have cited that if you want to protect the foetus, Parliament has the right to do so, but you must do it explicitly. That is why the member for Kitchener, at least
Government Orders
four times in his speech, said "implicitly". The member recognizes that the test is to be explicit. This bill is not. In fact, as I said, there is no definition.
If this bill passes it will institutionalize abortion. It will, in fact, make the procedure of abortion legitimate. In my view, the respect for life which it pretends to try to engender, will be diminished.
The member for Kitchener was talking about step-bystep procedures. In the United Kingdom, there is an abortion law which allows an abortion up to 28 weeks. Simply dividing the four weeks that there are in a month into 28 weeks shows that we are talking about seven months. In England abortion is allowed up to seven months. That was passed on the basis of putting it into law, and then working backward. It has not happened. Not only has it not happened, but society has become desensitized to the respect for life.
The next step has already been played out. Because of the lack of respect for life, embryo experimentation has been authorized in the United Kingdom. The next step, of course, is foetal experimentation. Is that the kind of society that we can look forward to in Canada?
I will now quickly address a few of the points that have been raised up by other members. A statement has been made that a woman has the right to choose. The question must be, a right to choose what? The answer is, to terminate a pregnancy. Quite frankly, that is an antiseptic way of saying, the right to choose to destroy the living entity within the person. I submit that that is unacceptable in a civilized society.
Another statement which has been used is: "It's my body". The fact is that there are two bodies involved. There is the mother and there is the child within her. Both those bodies are entitled to respect. Both those bodies are entitled to protection.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: I will have to ask the hon. member to conclude, please.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to quote Martin Luther King who said: "A law may not change the heart, but it will restrain the heartless."
What kind of law? The law must recognize explicitly civilized society's recognition of the right of the unborn to be alive. This bill does not do that. I urge members to defeat it for that reason. No law is better than a flawed law, because a flawed law will lend legislative legitimacy

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
to the greatest violation of human rights in history-the denial of the fundamental right to exist.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, when the member was stating his views on Bill C-43, he indicated that only a small proportion of doctors perform abortions in this country. He said it was because they knew or had scientific knowledge that when they were performing an abortion it was destroying a human life.
The truth of the matter is that only a small number of doctors perform abortions because they are harassed and because it is not a well-funded service for doctors. They find it a difficult question, there is no doubt about that, just as many of us find it a difficult question. But it has nothing to do with scientific knowledge.
I have a letter from the Canadian Medical Association. In part, it states: "We believe that, if passed, Bill C-43 will place at risk both the confidentiality and trust so essential to the physician-patient relationship. Further, we are convinced that this law will effectively limit access to this medical procedure resulting in greater danger to the pregnant woman's physical or mental well-being as the process for seeking an abortion becomes lengthier, one of the reasons the old law was struck down".
I would like the member to comment on the position of the Canadian Medical Association. I sat on the legislative committee. We saw no scientific knowledge from any of the scientific community, from the Canadian mental health community, or from the Canadian Medical Association, that supported his thesis. There simply is none. There was none. He is wrong.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. I believe that the answer that I can give is that there are divisions in the medical community as there are in this House, as there are in society. No matter what anybody says, less than 1 per cent of the doctors in this country do abortions. It is not because we do not pay doctors enough to do the abortions, it is because they find them distasteful. They find them
distasteful because they know precisely what they are doing.
Every obstetrician in this country knows that when he treats a pregnant woman, he is treating two patients, his pregnant patient and the child within her. Every single doctor who treats that pregnant woman is perfectly aware that there are two patients. We cannot deny simple biology. We cannot deny that there is a living entity within the womb that is growing. We cannot deny that biological fact.
To say that life begins at birth is to say that anything can be done before birth because there is no inherent human value to be protected. I do not accept that. I hope that our Canadian society does not accept that, but this is the forum to discuss those points. This is what we should be discussing, talking about when life begins, deciding those questions and not hiding from them and pretending that they do not exist. We have to come up with the facts and decide when human life begins. Once we decide that as a legislative body, then we will decide when, if ever, human life should be terminated.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wanted to let you know that the procedure on the government side of the House from now on will be that each member will divide the 20 minute time, so that each member will have 10 minutes, followed possibly by a five minute question period. From this point on, on the government side, that will be the procedure.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, first let me start off by offering to you my personal congratulations on the choice the Prime Minister announced in the House the other day. I think you and I have spent have spent time in this House together and at different committees, and I was absolutely thrilled with the announcement. I wish you the very best and look forward to working with you and being recognized as time goes on.
I am not going to enlarge on the substance of what I have said in this House on two other occasions on this very important subject, those dates having been October 30 and November 22.1 have some hesitation in getting up again today to speak on this subject but I found I
May 24, 1990

should get up and speak from a procedural aspect rather than from a substantive aspect of the abortion bill.
Let me quote from the comments I made on November 22, as reported at page 6016 of Hansard:
- it is the duty of every member of this House, to address these very important issues. We have now come to the point where decisions should be made. The decisions that are before us are: When do we terminate a pregnancy, what rights do individuals have in our society, and what are the rights of the unborn child from the moment of conception?
These are awesome questions that sometimes we have difficulty in answering. The reason that I rise today to address, not the substance of that issue, but some procedural aspects is that, prior to this first debate and as we get on to the situation of voting on this issue tonight, there is a group in our society that is determined to put an end to all abortions.
Unfortunately, in their zeal to protect the rights of the unborn, they often contravene, infringe upon, and fail to respect the rights of the living. They fail to respect the most fundamental right of all Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to free speech. On a personal note, this has happened to me and, as a result, I have some hesitation in getting up and speaking about it, not about the substance or because of the substance-I cannot change from my original position-but from the procedural aspects and the type of tactics they use in order to get you to change your position.
They use letters and magazines. The one that I am going to refer to is Vitality, Volume 3, No. 8. It says that, despite the fact that I had issued no new statement and had made no public statement calling for full legal protection of the unborn, which is absolutely wrong. The article reads, "Joe Comuzzi won in this election, a man who has made no public commitment to work to protect the rights of the unborn". That again, is wrong. What they were looking for in that statement is for me to sign some document which I could not sign. I had given them the reasons why I could not sign that document. It was not acceptable, it did not fit their very tight philosophy and, as a result, they were trying to blackmail me into signing. I refused to do so and these were the tactics they used.
The other modes of trying to coerce people into adopting position are letters to the editor from people
Government Orders
who are obviously in the pro-life movement. They try to embarrass you in your local community. I consider these types of procedures to be unacceptable and they are the reason for my rising today to make these statements.
Despite our personal beliefs, the subject we are discussing today must be approached with compassion, tolerance and understanding. Only through this reasonable dialogue between reasonable men and women can we attack and expect to resolve this very difficult societal issue that is before us today.
In my analysis of what we have heard and what we have seen, I particularly liked the speech that was given by the Governor of the State of New York, when he was addressing the convocation class in 1984 at Notre Dame University. I thought it would be interesting to quote from Governor Cuomo's speech where he said: "It would be tragic if we let the dialogue that we are involved with today become a prolonged and divisive argument that destroys or impairs our ability to practise and to love one another, to practise any part of our morality, to practise our sense of touching and healing our fellow human being, and to affirm that great life that surrounds all of us in this country".
In that quote I think is the compassion which I referred to earlier in my speech. I am afraid it is a compassion that has been missing in the procedural movement of those people who claim to be pro-life and use the tactics I referred to earlier to get people like myself to change our minds or be more adamant in our positions.
I think there was no more compelling meeting in this whole process than the meeting in my office in Thunder Bay, when I visited with the people of the pro-choice movement. They came into my office and for the first time I listened to them intently. They said that they are not on the other side of the fence. They are not against life because they oppose those principles and the philosophy that the other side chooses. That was the most sincere statement I heard in this whole process. I do not think anyone in this debate is against life. I compliment and thank the people who took the time out in the area I represent, Thunder Bay-Nipigon, and all those people throughout Canada who have taken an interest in this very important topic, people who came and expressed their views and helped us make our decisions as politicians, in a reasoned and compassionate way. As I said,

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, it was the best lesson that I had heard, and the best lesson throughout this whole process.
At the outset I made my views known on this topic very clearly. I reconfirmed my position. I did not want to leave anyone uncertain as to where I stood. The result the pro-life movement has tried to accomplish is where I really stand on this issue. My position has not changed. Substantively, I am with those people who are against the termination of pregnancy and I am certainly against the procedural issues that the pro-life movement stands for and how they approach the problem. I reconfirmed that position in the House today. I intend to vote against the legislation.
Philosophically, I am on their side but, personally, I separate myself from any association with that group which fails to exhibit the compassion towards our fellow human beings which this sensitive subject demands. I think I have made my position clear. This group that represents the substantive issue that I represent fails to exhibit the compassion, it fails to listen to a reasoned approach, it fails to acknowledge that there can be another side to an issue, and it fails to respect the freedoms that all of us in Canada have come to enjoy.
There is a group which in their zeal attempts to protect the life and rights of the unborn but they fail to protect the rights of those of us already here.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I extend to you my sincere congratulations in assuming your very high position. I also thank you for recognizing me during this critical and emotional debate for so many Canadians.
I will be brief as I make my position clear one more time, as I have done debate after debate, vote after vote, election after election, and Parliament after Parliament.
I believe that life begins at the moment of conception, period, full stop. I believe that nothing should interrupt that life if we are truly trying to protect the rights of the unborn.
While I can modify my anti-abortion stand in a couple of ways, and I will refer to them in a moment, I must stand on my own personal beliefs, whether or not there is a consensus among the people I represent, whether or
not I am adhering to the government line, as expressed by the Prime Minister and the Attorney General of Canada, both of whom know exactly where I stand.
On that point, I want to commend the Right Hon. Prime Minister, his House leader, and my friend from Calgaiy West, the chief government whip for allowing a free vote according to the individual conscience of members of Parliament. I exercised that opportunity to vote freely during a number of amendments to Bill C-43 and a motion of concurrence last evening.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you, or anyone who is looking in, or listening to, or reading the transcripts of this debate, how agonizing, how emotionally difficult this matter of abortion is for any member of Parliament, regardless of the party that he or she represents. Here is what I said in my weekly, or in my semi-occasional weekly column to my constituents in the Flambouroulgh Review of July 20, 1988:
Abortion is an extremely volatile issue. It is philosophical. It is
emotional. It affects everybody, deeply and personally. I will
therefore exercise my vote conscientiously and responsibly.
I said earlier that I could soften my pro-life stand in a couple of obviously difficult circumstances: first, in the case of rape or incest and, second, in the case of a medical emergency. This comes down to a fundamentally important point which some of our colleagues have touched upon, but I want to reinforce it. I am not equipped to play God. No politician is. Any politician who thinks she or he is equipped to play God had better not be in this business.
Only when there is a really true medical emergency which affects the life of the mother to be should the matter become a case between the woman and her doctor. In that case I can certainly support the medical side of this issue.
As an adjunct to that, I also soften a little in terms of the psychological aspects if there is severe mental distress or harm to the mother and/or to the foetus. Then I think that again it becomes a matter between a woman and the appropriate medical authority to make that decision, but that is where it stops in my view.
I have one very deep regret about some of the signals I have been sending on Bill C-43, and that is my profound respect for women, not only for my colleagues on all sides of the House but for the women's movement in
May 24, 1990

Government Orders
general. I truly admire those women who have wrestled in physical, psychological and legal ways with this issue.
I do not want any of my female colleagues in this place to think for one moment that my very deep and proper conscience votes on the amendments have anything to do with my respect for the women colleagues in this place who vote the other way. Not in the slightest do I acquaint my affection for women with the direction that my votes take on the abortion issue.
We are talking about life itself. Male and female foetuses are at stake here. We respect life. We spare life. I see no way that I can support this bill next Tuesday, May 29, unless there is some recognition of the protection of the unborn. There may be some. I am willing to withhold my final decision in terms of how I vote. There may be some of that protection. Maybe some law is better than no law at all, but I ha'e me doubts.
I really feel that I cannot support the legislation, not because my constituents feel that I should do so, not because I have received countless letters from across the country in support of my stand to vote against this bill unless amendments are passed, and certainly not because anyone on this side has ordered me one way or the other how to vote on this issue. No, sir.
I do not respond favourably to write-in campaigns or orders from above anywhere. I am simply voting according to my conscience, as I have said, the Prime Minister has graciously allowed members of Parliament to do.
I sympathize with those who want to vote pro-life according to their consciences. I heard very clearly, as we all have if we have been listening to this debate, the opposite arguments so very eloquently stated by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, both distinguished representatives from British Columbia. I found their arguments fascinating, and in the case of the former premier of British Columbia, great theatre. It still does not change my mind. I owe it to my constituents and my fellow believers across the country to promote the sanctity of life and the protection of innocent unborn children.
Some will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that some compromise law is better than no law at all. As I said earlier, some do not want any law regarding abortion. As I said, I am not God and, certainly the former premier of British Columbia said the truest words that I have heard from him, neither is he.
This is a non-partisan debate. This bill in my view does not strike a balance between the rights of the woman and the rights of the foetus. I want a law which truly protects the rights of the unborn children who have no right or chance or opportunity to speak in this chamber as we do today. I will be keeping my own counsel about how to vote on Bill C-43 at third reading.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I must say to the member for Hamilton-Wentworth that I think that was truly one of the better speeches I have heard in the House. It was one of the better speeches because it came straight from the heart. I said earlier today that many times we are engaged in rhetoric. This is one of those rare occasions in the House where the rhetoric has lessened and the emotion and humanness of the members of this place is shown to be at its best.
I do not know whether the hon. member heard my speech earlier, but I find myself in almost the same position of trying to grapple with that balance which in the Supreme Court decision said that parliamentarians had a right and should by right look at the societal interest and the rights of the foetus. I firmly believe, as a reasonable, rational individual such as my friend from Hamilton-Wentworth is, that the bill simply does not go far enough.
I guess I do this at some risk, and I hope I am not putting the member at some risk, but many times in my position of trying to find that balance with the societal rights of the foetus, people will say: "You are against women". Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth in my case, and I know in the case of the hon. member. TTie hon. member mentioned something that I have not heard in this debate before. It is that when we are dealing with the rights of the foetus, we are dealing with the rights of the foetus, male and female, so we are indeed dealing with the rights of women which must in my view be protected under any law. I want to commend him for striking a particular note with me on that

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
remark. I would hope that others who find this debate to be divisive would see the compassion and the deep reflective thought the hon. member put into his remarks.
I want to ask a question. The hon. member mentioned that he had been looking in the bill for some better definition of what "at risk" means when an abortion would be permitted under law. I am wondering, not to put words in the hon. member's mouth, if he is as concerned as I am and as some members are that the definition of when an abortion would be permitted under this legislation is just a little too loose and a little too open to interpretation. In a legalistic sense when those things happen, sometimes we err on the side of leniency and expansion. That is a great concern that I have.
Could the member elaborate a little more about the type of amendment he would have liked to have seen which would have better defined "at risk" and "health"?


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend across the way for his kind comments.
One of the problems that I and a number of us on this side have about the current legislation is that one could drive trucks through the legal definitions of what at risk is, what health is, whether health means physical health, mental health, psychological health, or whatever. That is one of the things that will ultimately have to be resolved once we in this House decide what to do about this legislation.
I am being persuaded that some law, some foot in the door, some restriction on the Morgantaler-type mentality on abortions, is better than no law at all. I am being persuaded that maybe we have a chance in this House of Commons to do something which some Parliaments down the road may never have a chance to do. We have got a pretty good consensus kind of legislation. As I say, one can drive trucks through some of the phrases and the points such as at risk, for example.
All I can say to my hon. friend is that it is something that all of us are wrestling with. When I talked about male and female foetuses I thought that maybe I should draw attention to that end of the spectrum, because male and female members of Parliament are debating this issue and yet this issue is perceived to be strictly a woman's issue. It is. It is veiy much a woman's issue. None of us men have to go through abortions, but I still think that because we are talking from one end of the spectrum to the other we are talking about the need for
all members of society to take a very serious look at this question and at this bill.


Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, as my friends have previously outlined, this is obviously a matter that causes us a great deal of concern. All of us have wrestled with the various aspects of the matter. As was previously mentioned it is also a balancing of rights.
In looking at the evidence before the parliamentary committee, the balancing of rights was mentioned quite a bit in term of various rights such as the foetal rights and the rights of the mother. It was a thread that seemed to go through the evidence all the time. Obviously that is the result of the Morgentaler decision and the striking down of the previous Section 251 because it infringed upon Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and affected a woman's security of her person.
In looking at what type of law can be drafted, we look at the decision and we see the remark that society has an interest in the foetus which has to be balanced with the rights of the mother.
How do we do that? Obviously it is very difficult. Bill C-43 is an attempt to reach that balance between the woman and the security of her person and society's interest in the protection of the foetus. When we are drafting the law we have to realize that we are within those parameters and have to deal with that particular aspect of the matter. Otherwise, if we have a law that is too restrictive, it will be struck down.
In looking at that, as well as looking at the woman's right to security of her person and also other matters under Section 2A of the charter, her equality rights under Section 15 and also her sexual equality rights under Section 28, we realize all those matters have to be taken into account in drafting the law.
It would not be easy to take a stand that would say no abortion ever, but if we decided to pass such a law we know that it would be struck down immediately. Are we being true to ourselves or am I being true to myself if we do that? I do not think I am. Where does that leave us?
I noticed in the evidence before the committee there was some indication that we could use Section 33 of the charter in order to make whatever law we produced valid for five years. I cannot accept that. I cannot accept that. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our country has evolved to the point where we feel confident enough that we can use that charter. Our laws should be within that charter. In that respect, I cannot see using
May 24, 1990

Section 33 in order to validate any law that we put forward.
If we wanted to go even further, to say that life begins at conception, this would require a constitutional amendment, with the obvious difficulties we all know that entails. But that also introduces a legal regime for the foetus itself. We do not even know the implications of that legal regime.
After a decision regarding foetal rights in the United States, and I do not mean to be frivolous, an action was launched by individuals claiming that nine months should be added to everybody's age, showing how that would affect individuals. There is also the question of accidents, and what happens in that matter. It is something that has not been thought through and I cannot go in that direction and I would not like to see the country go in that direction. So I reject Section 33 and I reject any constitutional amendment.
That leaves us with a framework as set out in the Morgentaler and Daigle cases in order to try to balance the rights of the woman under the Charter of Rights and balance the rights of the foetus. It is obviously a difficult task, and we have heard people make comment here that it has not occurred in this legislation.
This is something that is obviously going to change over a period of time. It is not going to remain static. I think that we all realize that the matter is not going to end in this particular chamber once this bill is dealt with. If the bill is defeated, we are faced with the reality that there will be no law in place. Although the Daigle case speaks to it, we do not want to see the events of last summer repeated, with the degradation of people and their emotions and private lives being exposed on the televisions of the nation. We need some law that will give us stability in this area.
This legislation is the best attempt at finding a a balance of the rights of the woman and the rights of the foetus. Many of the aspects of the Morgentaler decision in terms of access have been removed. One doctor is involved in this particular law. We see a definition of health to deal with previous concerns about that definition. Those are a couple of matters that seem to deal
Government Orders
with the objections in terms of access that were raised by two or three of the judges in the Morgentaler decision. The attempt is being made to try to deal with the defects that were found in the previous Section 251 in this particular law.
The gestational approach originally proposed by the Law Reform Commission as a way to balance the rights of the foetus and the rights of the woman has been rejected. I have to agree with that decision because that approach could raise many difficult questions.
The Daigle case indicated that rights begin at birth. Looking at that particular aspect of it, it seems the Supreme Court did not want deal extensively with the legal aspect of rights of the foetus. I have my own personal views on the subject matter, but I do not feel that I can force them on to any other individual.
As I say, I start with the premise that we have a Charter of Rights and we must have a law that fits within that. To be true to myself and to ensure the inclusion of such a law, while recognizing the woman's rights, I think the balance provided within Bill C-43 is the best that can be achieved at this time.
I did not vote in favour of any the amendments that were put forward last evening. If any of those amendments were passed, they would have made the bill too restrictive.
If this law is passed, we are going to have a determination on it, I am sure, and this matter will not end here. But for those reasons, I feel that this is the best that we can do at the present time, in balancing the rights of the woman and the rights of the foetus. That is why I will be supporting this bill on third reading.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member on the government side of the House had to say. I think that he has tried very hard to be sensitive to many of the issues that people in the House and people from coast to coast in this country are struggling with on the whole issue.
I did, though, wonder when he said that part of his rationale for supporting Bill C-43 would be that he felt that this bill would prohibit or stop the kinds of horrific spectacles we saw last summer when the most personal

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
and intimate details of the life of a young woman, Chantal Daigle, were displayed across the country.
The anti-choice people, the anti-choice zealots, have already indicated clearly that if Bill C-43 becomes law, they will take that law and use it as a new legal tool in order to harass doctors and women who are seeking abortions. They have made that very clear.
I want to ask the hon. member to reconsider the idea that Bill C-43 will stop that. It will not stop that. What has stopped those civil injunctions has been the Supreme Court of Canada. It has been very busily going about its work shutting down these legal avenues to estranged boyfriends and others who would use the legal avenues to harass women.
However, these same people have indicated that if this bill becomes law they will use it in order to harass women and doctors. I would like him to comment on that, please.


Kenneth David Atkinson: Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the harassment, if there is any, will not go on too long. I share her concern and I do not want to see that sort of thing start up again.
By the same token, society's interest in protecting the foetus has to be recognized, as well as the woman's right. It has to be done through the mechanism that is set out here, with a doctors' opinion which is arrived at using generally accepted standards of the medical profession. I am sure that no court is going to allow a frivolous application to come forward. You are going to have to deal with that particular matter. You are going to have to show that that has not been taken care of.
I see my friend shaking her head. We disagree on that particular point. It is set out and the definition is there and a frivolous matter, I know, will be quickly taken care of.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as you know, last evening Parliament was called upon to decide on a series of amendment that were introduced. Each of the amendments were defeated and the bill itself was concurred in at report stage by a significant number of members of Parliament. I believe the number was 132. That would suggest that when the final vote is
called on Bill C-43, the legislation will, in fact, become law. I find that extremely regrettable.
When this bill was introduced into the House of Commons and debated at second reading stage, I voted for Bill C-43, not because I agreed with the bill. I indicated at the time that I had very serious reservations about Bill C-43, but I supported the bill at second reading simply to allow the bill to proceed to committee in order to enable members of Parliament, including myself, to present amendments in order to more accurately reflect my particular point of view with respect to this subject matter.
In their wisdom, the members of the legislative committee who considered Bill C-43, did not accept any amendments to the bill in the form that it was presented to them and given first reading on November 3, 1989.
In spite of the fact that the Prime Minister indicated to the House and to the country that it was a free vote, that members of Parliament in his caucus, the Conservative caucus, would be permitted to vote according to their own conscience, we know that in reality it was not a free vote. Members of Parliament were not free to vote according to their own conscience. In fact, the Prime Minister said that members of his cabinet were not free to vote, that they would all have to toe the party line and endorse Bill C-43. The message went out very clearly to the Conservative back-benchers that they should support Bill C-43.
At this point, I would like to salute those Conservative members of Parliament who broke with their party and rejected to date Bill C-43.1 have great respect for them, knowing the possible consequences that might follow as a result of them not supporting the Prime Minister and cabinet on this particular issue.
This bill will become law on Tbesday. As I indicated at second reading stage, and I have since indicated time and time again in speeches that I have given across the country, this bill is the most fraudulent and hypocritical piece of legislation that I have seen in the six years that I have been in Parliament.
Bill C-43 resulted from the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada over two years ago that declared Sections 287 and 288 of the Code unconstitutional.
May 24, 1990

For a long period of time the government dithered, delayed, procrastinated and hoped that somehow the issue would disappear. It waited for the Morgentaler follow-up decision on the Borowski case. It then wanted to test the will of Parliament by introducing a multiple choice type of resolution.
Then, finally, it introduced amendments to the Criminal Code in the form that we have before us, Bill C-43.1 submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government would not have introduced Bill C-43 had it not been for the so-called pro-life members of the Conservative caucus who decided to compromise on the issue and support the bill.
I am convinced that, if those members of Parliament had stood by their views and stood by their convictions and insisted on a piece of legislation that would accurately reflect how they felt about the issue, then the government would not have introduced this bill. It would not have perpetrated a fraud on the people of Canada by suggesting somehow that this bill was a compromise, a common ground, a bill that would try to bridge the gap between those who believe there ought to be no law at all and those who believe there should be a law protecting life from the moment of conception onward.
The only redeeming aspect of Bill C-43 is that it is legislation that would amend the Criminal Code of Canada. In effect, it would reintroduce the subject of abortion back into the Criminal Code of Canada. That is the only redeeming aspect of it.
Members of Parliament will know that the only jurisdiction that Parliament has to deal with this issue is the Criminal Code of Canada. The only place that a law could be dealt with is within the criminal law jurisdiction. The health jurisdiction is within the powers of provincial governments. So, if the government wanted to deal with this issue, it had to deal with it in the Criminal Code of Canada.
Why is this bill hypocritical and fraudulent? Prima facie at the outset, this bill states that, because they are introduced into the Criminal Code of Canada, abortions are illegal and contrary to the Criminal Code. That is what it says at the outset. The government thought that those who believed that the innocent unborn must be protected from the moment of conception onward would be happy and rejoice and say: "Thank you, Prime
Government Orders
Minister. Thank you, Conservative government. You have recognized the sanctity of life."
The bill then defines the circumstances under which abortions could be obtained in such a broad fashion as to allow abortion on demand, abortion on request.
I would like to read the operative clause. It is a short bill, a page and half of text, two sections of the Criminal Code. The operative section would be 287(1) which states:
Every person who induces an abortion on a female person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, unless the abortion is induced by or under the direction of a medical practitioner who is of the opinion that, if the abortion were not induced, the health or life of the female person would be likely to be threatened.
What does all that mean? First, it means that the abortion does not have to be done by a doctor, a medical practitioner. It simply states that in order to be legal, the abortion has to be done by a doctor or under the direction of a medical practitioner. In other words, as long as the medical practitioner or the doctor directs the person, a nurse, a clerk-anybody-can conduct an abortion. The doctor does not have to be present. The doctor could be elsewhere in the office, elsewhere in the city, or elsewhere in the country. All the doctor has to do is form the opinion-and I will get to how he forms that opinion in a moment-and that opinion could be formed as a result of a telephone conversation with the woman. Once that opinion is formed, the doctor could direct a nurse, a clerk, or anyone in the office, to perform that abortion.
How does the doctor arrive at the opinion that the abortion ought to take place? The doctor has to form the opinion that, if the abortion were not induced, the health or life of the female person would be likely to be threatened. The latter part of that is clear and straightforward, "the life of the female person would be likely be threatened". That is specific. Although it uses the word "likely", we are talking about the life of the female person.
But where the bill becomes totally broad and open is with respect to the word "health". Health is defined in the bill itself in subsection (ii) as including physical, mental and psychological health. In effect, under every circumstance, the doctor could form the opinion. There is no restriction. Mental, physical and psychological

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
health-that is the definition of health by which the doctor could form the opinion.
The likelihood of any doctor ever being prosecuted for an offence under Bill C-43 is extremely remote, to say the least. How could any doctor ever be successfully prosecuted? How could any prosecutor ever decide to prosecute under this particular section? It would be impossible and the government knew that. The bill is hypocritical in that it purports to be all things to all people.
Yesterday, I supported each of the amendments that were presented to the House that would make the bill a more restrictive bill. I regret that the motions did not cany, particularly Motion No. 10 which was introduced by my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. That particular motion would have allowed abortions only in the circumstance in which the life of the mother was threatened.
The amendments were all defeated. It is my intention to vote against the bill and to encourage and urge other members of Parliament to vote against the bill, because I believe it is a bad piece of legislation.
I believe it is bad, not only because of its nature, in that it tries to be all things to all people, but because it does not address the central issue which somehow politicians in this place are afraid to deal with and which the government was afraid to deal with, and that is the issue of when life begins.
The Supreme Court of Canada in the Morgentaler decision did not have the courage and backbone to render a decision in terms of when life begins. How can the issue of abortion be dealt with, and all the consequent considerations of the issue of abortion, without deciding first when life begins?
I put a question to a member of the New Democratic Party earlier today. I asked him when life begins, in his view, and he refused to answer. He made a joke about the issue. That is where the argument of the so-called pro-choice element of this debate completely collapses.
According to the pro-choice-those who would have no abortion law at all-the logic of their position is that life begins at birth. They are saying that they want no law at all, absolutely, under no circumstances. In effect, they are saying that life begins at birth.
That position cannot be reasonably argued because any reasonable person must conclude that there is life before birth. We know that as a scientific fact that there is life before birth. When that life begins is the question. Some might ask, who am I to try to decide when life begins?
We are all mere mortals. We are all mere human beings. We are called upon as parliamentarians and as legislators to make difficult decisions and to make tough decisions. Yet, the government and members on the government side and on this side of the House refuse to deal with the question of when life begins.
We all agree, or at least the overwhelming majority of members of the House agree, that life is sacred, that life is sacrosanct. I participated in the capital punishment debate a few short years ago. I listened to members of the New Democratic Party, members of the Conservative Party, and my colleagues in the Liberal Party. Notwithstanding the views of the overwhelming majority of Canadians, the House said no to capital punishment. The House, in a very significant vote, said that life is sacred, life must be protected, and life cannot be taken by the state under any circumstances, regardless of how criminal that life may be. It was the right decision. It was a day to be remembered in the House of Commons.
Those arguments somehow are lost when we are dealing with life before birth. They are equally as applicable. We heard the arguments about the sanctity of life and how life must be protected, and surely that must be extended to life before birth. Yet, the argument or the debate has not centered around the issue of life before birth and when it begins.
The position that I have taken, as a member of Parliament and as an individual, is that life begins at conception. To my mind, there is no other logical place where life begins. How can it be reasonably argued that in the nine-month span that life begins at some point other than conception? I state, and I have stated before, that in my view life cannot begin after birth, that there is life before birth. What argument, what medical-legal logic can be applied to determine when life begins before birth, other than at conception?
If one concludes that life begins before birth, at any point before birth, or that it begins at conception, surely that life must be afforded every protection that we have
May 24, 1990

as living, breathing, human beings. Who are we to distinguish between life?
As parliamentarians, we do not distinguish between a disabled person and an able-bodied person. We believe that all life is sacred after birth and must be protected. Who are we to say that that life before birth somehow is less deserving of the protection of law as life after birth? That is the central issue. It is not a question of choice and denying women the right to choose, or anything of the sort, in my view.
Yes, it is a difficult issue. No one likes to see the situations in which women find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. We would all like to see that every pregnancy is a wanted pregnancy, but that is not reality.
Unless there is protection in law for life, from the moment of conception until natural death, I cannot support any legislation. I urge members of Parliament to defeat this bill and to encourage and force the government to bring in a more restrictive bill and allow the debate to carry on in a free and unfettered fashion in order to recognize the sanctity of life and the protection of the innocent unborn in our country.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time that I have spoken on abortion during the debate on Bill C-43.
I am probably one of the more fortunate members of Parliament because, from my arrival in the House a couple of years ago, there has been no question in my mind as to how I would vote on this matter. I made it known publicly two years ago or more now that I am a pro-life member of Parliament and that I intend to stay. Because of that, I do not have to put myself through the mental turmoil that many members of Parliament have to in grappling with this issue. I am pro-life and that I will remain.
Bill C-43 is simply not a pro-life bill, not at all. It is a compromise piece of legislation which compromises human life and because of that I cannot support it.
The last time I spoke on this bill, in the fall of 1989,1 concluded by reiterating a conversation I had with my son. I want to continue with that conversation. My son Christian, who is eight years old, asked me one evening: "What is abortion?" To answer an eight year old child in a way which does not disturb the innocence of that child is very, very difficult. If all members of Parliament had to stand before a classroom of children, whether they be six year olds, seven year olds or ten year olds, and describe
Government Orders
to them what abortion is, the reality of what we are talking about would come home to them.
In the course of conversation with my son I attempted to explain to him what abortion actually is. In that process I was attempting to disguise my words. I was trying to protect the innocence of a child without distorting human values. Immediately that child begins to ask questions: "What is abortion, Dad? What happens to that baby inside the mother, Dad? Does the baby actually die, Dad?" That is what we are talking about. That is coming to grips with what abortion really is. It is not an easy subject to talk about with a child or in front of a group of children because that is exactly what it is, it is the destruction of human life.
As the member who spoke just previously mentioned, if you are pro-life, if you are for human beings, you have to act on the premise that life begins at conception. If we believe that life begins at conception, and if we believe that a human being exists at the moment of conception, we have to believe that when that life is destroyed a human being is actually killed. The reality of abortion is simply that. It is the taking of a human life.
Bill C-43 does not address that reality. Every member of Parliament can ask him or herself this simple question: If Bill C-43 becomes law, will we be preserving human life? In other words, will there be less abortions after Bill C-43 is enacted? The answer is simply that there will not be. It will not make one bit of difference. We will still have abortions in this country and they will still be legal. We will not have done what we have to do as parliamentarians-protect the life and innocence of those unborn. We will not have dealt with the reality of the situation and this is masking that reality. We have to honestly ask ourselves whether we are protecting the lives of the unborn with Bill C-43. Obviously we are not because, again, we are attempting to compromise human life.
It is not a question of being holier than thou because, I am just a human being. I am not a constitutional lawyer or a doctor, but I am a human being. Those are the kinds of people whom I represent. Certainly there are doctors in my riding. There are doctors in this House. There are lawyers in my riding. We can get into the nitty-gritty of when life begins. We can have doctors debating doctors as to when that magic moment of life actually begins. We can have constitutional lawyers arguing whether Bill C-43 is constitutional or whether a solidly pro-life bill would be constitutional. Some argue that it would be, some argue that it would not be. Others argue that if we are going to bring in a pro-life bill we would have to change the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in other

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
words, change the Constitution so that it does protect the life of the unborn child.
Some lawyers argue that that would be an impossibility. Some parliamentarians argue it would be an impossibility to change the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country. Maybe it is an impossibility, but unless we strive for the ultimate, that is the protection of the human being, we have not fulfilled our roles as parliamentarians.
We are talking of the most defenceless of all human beings, the unborn child. That, in essence, is what this debate is all about, whether we as parliamentarians can come to grips with that reality. I say we are not doing that with Bill C-43. It is, in a sense, a classic Canadian compromise, but it is not doing what we set out to do as pro-lifers. It is not protecting the life of that unborn child.
From the first vote onwards I never supported Bill C-43. I attempted, through the amendment process, to make Bill C-43 a pro-life bill. That was not successful. We tried. I tried. Many of us have tried but we have not achieved that pro-life bill that we attempted to achieve since many days ago. We have failed.
With that, we are left with a bill that has not achieved the desired objective, that is to protect the life of the unborn. Because of that, I cannot support this bill. Again, I will only support abortion when the life of the mother is clearly endangered. I cannot support a bill that does not support the life of the unborn child. For that reason, I will not support Bill C-43. Human life cannot be compromised.


Jim Jordan: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on a very passionate speech, with which I agree. I would like to get his reaction to something that I heard from one of the earlier speakers today who was also a strong pro-lifer. He said that with this bill we are making an incremental gain and therefore we should take this opportunity. He meant, I guess, that at some point down the road there would be some more gains made and eventually society
would look upon this in the way it should be looked upon, as taking a life.
Would my colleague like to comment on the thought that if we miss this opportunity to make Bill C-43 law, we will miss the opportunity for incremental gain toward reaching the long-range goal of having total and complete respect for life in all stages?


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, I think that we have already missed the opportunity to do what we should be doing. It is strictly hypothetical to look down the road to what might happen based on something which did not happen.
Again, this is the classic compromise. Maybe in some cases a compromise is good enough, but unless we strive for perfection, unless we strive for the ultimate, which is protection of the foetus, I think we have done ourselves an injustice.
I believe that the hon. member who posed this question believes the same thing. I think we will have done ourselves a disservice if we look down the road to what might have happened. The opportunity is now and we have to seize it now, not later.


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Madam Speaker, many positions have been put forth in this debate on Bill C-43 showing the wide diversity of opinion that exists in Canada with regard to the matter of abortion and the degrees of respect for life. It is my privilege to join in this debate and to give a point of view which I believe is held by many Canadians.
Yesterday members of the House of Commons dealt with the amendments. I regret that some of the amendments that I thought were so vital and so important did not carry, in particular, Motion No. 10 which dealt with the life of the mother.
Let me make it clear from the outset that I have always had and continue to have the utmost respect for human life from conception to natural death. It is a matter of conscience that I must speak out in the strongest possible terms in favour of the preservation of the life of the unborn. One of the marks of a civilized society is the high regard in which it holds life and the

right to life of all humans, especially those unable to defend themselves.
The more society advances in its civilization, the more the various countries realize that too many lives are being wasted by the permissiveness that has allowed so many human unborn babies to be sacrificed. In Great Britain, the leaders are striving to chip away at the present laws to cut down on the number of abortions. The President of the United States and his predecessor both made it clear that laws must be changed to stop the great number of unborn children being killed.
A recent survey showed that almost two-thirds of Canadians are not even aware that one million abortions have been approved in Canada since 1969. Half of those surveyed did not know that medicare paid for most of those abortions. That same survey showed that a majority of Canadians believe that abortion should be illegal unless the mother's life is in danger. Surely we in Canada are civilized enough, Christian enough and caring enough to take measures to stop the slaughter of so many innocent victims. As a man of conscience I cannot and I will not accept any legislation that does not protect the sanctity of human life. I urge my colleagues to take the same stand.
We are told that abortion is a very complex matter. There are some who feel that it is not that complicated at all. For example, Mother Teresa sees it as a very simple matter. Abortion is the taking of a human life, and it is wrong. That is all. Of course saints are very uncomplicated people, which makes it so difficult for journalists to interview them. There is no way they can twist her words or the meaning she puts across. When they say that some women do not want their baby, she replies: "Give it to me. I want the child". We know she means exactly that because she has taken so many unwanted children.
I believe that abortion is the destruction of an innocent child. I frankly do not think that anyone, no matter on which side of the argument he or she may be, wants to see the destruction of an innocent child. That is why I call upon my fellow parliamentarians in this House to make sure that their decision regarding abortion is an informed one.
Government Orders
When does life begin? Does abortion really solve social problems, or does it create them? These are the questions I would like to help answer.
When the United States Senate conducted an extensive hearing on this subject in 1981, over 50 international authorities testified. The official report reads as follows: "Physicians and scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being-a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical and scientific writings."
It is clear then that it is not the time of birth that represents the creation of a new human being. Actual birth is only a change in the place of residence of the already living, active person.
Abortion is the violent killing of an unborn. Others have described it in various ways. I do not want to go into a description of the grisly details with regard to abortion, because others have. Suffice it to say that whether we refer to abortion as killing or as an induced death, it is largely a question of semantics. The effect on the child is the same: it dies.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who once was the director of the world's largest abortion clinic and is now a staunch pro-life supporter, has stated that there is seldom any purely medical indications for abortion.
We can go on to raise questions with regard to the safety of legal abortions. Very often we do not hear very much said about that. In a book written by David Reardon, he points out that of the 252 women surveyed, approximately half of them complained of suffering from at least one type of physical complication following abortion. The facts are clear that the so-called health problems during pregnancy are not a real factor. Rather, the true health problems exist after the abortion. The post-abortion syndrome is a very well-known phenomenon which is becoming more and more known as followup is being recorded.
This fact was made abundantly clear to the committee when Ms. Beverly Hadland, executive director of the Abortion Crisis Centre in Toronto, appeared and shared with the committee her considerable experience.
The natural order, regardless of one's religious belief, is a law which must be respected by all. A person of religious convictions has an even greater reason to

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
uphold the sanctity of human life. It is the law of God. These same principles have been enunciated over and over again by Pope John Paul II.
I want to conclude with a couple of other remarks about the role of society with regard to this matter because I believe there is a social issue that must be addressed.
We live in a society that is becoming more and more permissive, a laissez-faire society where moral values have been shoved aside. I believe that the school and the home have a very important role to play in the education of our children. Should a pregnancy occur, what then? Good counselling must be readily available. Too many of the so-called counselling centres only offer information on where to get an abortion. These pregnant women need love and understanding, comfort and care. The killing of a baby is not the answer.
Where needed, society should provide housing and day care assistance for these pregnant mothers so that they can make the choice of whether or not to have the child. At the time of the birth of the child the mother would decide whether to raise the child or to give it up for adoption.
Why is it that couples wishing to adopt a child have to wait years? There is a need to examine our adoption procedure with a view to speeding up the process.
I firmly believe that society as a whole has a role to play in providing more education, improved counselling, housing, and day care availability. I urge all Canadians to join together to resolve a social problem. I believe that as parliamentarians we have reached a point in time when we must make a choice and that choice is clear: whether we stand for life or stand by idly and surrender to a philosophy of death. I will be voting for life against the bill.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity at this late hour to be discussing Bill C-43, the abortion legislation, at third reading. I want the House to know that I also oppose Bill C-43 and will be voting against its passage at third reading, but perhaps not for the reasons that some of those who have just spoken have enunciated.
I believe that this bill goes some distance toward criminalizing abortion. As the member for Kitchener has outlined, it is part of a transition toward criminalization
of abortion in Canada and a reversal of the procedure that has been happening in this country over the past several years.
Part of the problem with this legislation is that it is going to create an untenable situation for doctors and an untenable situation for mothers who have made the decision to have an abortion, in that they will have both disgruntled boyfriends and so-called pro-life agencies looking over their shoulders and questioning in the courts and otherwise whether this was done for the reasons permitted under Bill C-43.
This is going to create an absolutely untenable situation for those women and those doctors, and it is going to make it more and more difficult for people who seek abortions for legitimate reasons to obtain abortions.
That is not to say that I have not listened carefully to the arguments that have been made by members on all sides of the House. I think members have made those arguments in good conscience and good faith. I do not think we should question the integrity, the agony, or the study that has gone into the speeches that have been made in this House. Members speak out of strongly held beliefs. There are some who believe that life begins at conception and therefore that the extension of the law of this land to the foetus while in its mother's womb is a legitimate extension of the laws of this Parliament.
I reject that position. I think it is going to create a very difficult situation with respect to the balancing of rights. I believe that extending the law of this country into the womb of a mother makes that women a second-class citizen and undermines the rights she enjoys as an individual who is due all of the rights of a Canadian citizen. It is going to create some serious difficulties by imposing the rights of two individuals on the body of a single person. Again, that is untenable for women and this would be a very difficult piece of legislation to implement and uphold. It is going to be very difficult.
The argument about when life begins seems like a very abstract argument, very distant from the situation of a woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy agonizing over whether to give birth to another mouth to feed or to give the child up for adoption. Those are decisions which many of the people who are making that argument, and certainly myself, have never been compelled to make. It is very easy to be abstract, theoretical, dry, and scientific on this issue and to discuss it as if it is
May 24, 1990

nothing more than the usual dry debate we hear on legislation and scientific abstractions.
For many people faced with this decision, it is a very real and terrifying decision which the majority of us in this room are so remote from that we cannot possibly bring ourselves close enough to understand it, other than from an abstract point of view.
Over the years, having examined the subject and having had discussions with people who were presented with the decision of whether or not to abort, I have come to the conclusion that I support the pro-choice position. This piece of legislation is so antagonistic to that prochoice position that I am compelled to vote against it.
I have had some experience with the issue of abortion. I used to work in the criminal justice system of the province of British Columbia. I worked in the prison system at a time when abortion was illegal under the Criminal Code. Consequently, on those occasions when an abortionist was captured and ended up under my control in the prison system, I was introduced to the people who cany out this process under a criminalized regime, how they act, and what type of people they are.
They are not the type of people you would want yourself, Madam Speaker, your daughter, your granddaughter or your nieces ever to come in contact with. The abortionists whom I met are looking at this legislation and rubbing their hands in glee because they have reason to believe that their profession is now going back to what it was before and that it will be as lucrative as it was before, with very minimal risks involved, because people who go to such abortionist do not go to the newspapers and tell tales about them. The only times it comes to the attention of the media is when these people fail and mutilate or kill their clients. That happens time after time.
It is a very lucrative profession. Those people whom I kept in jail under the previous regime saw prison as a holiday before they went back to their work, which earned them a great deal of money with very little risk at all. I can see them now, rubbing their hands together, as the Parliament of Canada is talking about supporting life and arguing abstractly about when life begins. For these people this is when their business begins and then they
Government Orders
can get back to work in the back alleys of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and every city of any size in this country. This law is going to guarantee them customers.
I hear people talk about the concern they have for life, and I mentioned this in my previous speech on second reading. I recall reading a magazine about UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund, and the work that UNICEF does around the world. In our discussion we talked about the abstractness of when life begins, whether it begins at conception or at some other time, or at birth. There are children who are bom in this world who do not live, who starve to death. I am told by UNICEF about the number of children who die every single week in the world because they have inadequate food, or because they have inadequate protection from disease, or because they have inadequate sewage and clean water supplies, or inadequate shelter. That number of children is a quarter million a week. They die before the age of five years.
When we are talking about life, somebody in this debate has to give some consideration to the quarter million children who die around this world because we in this Parliament, by the way we handle our foreign aid, have made sure that many of those children will die before the age of five. Those children die of humiliating diseases, like dysentery, things that could be easily cured with a very small expenditure of money, money that we have cut back in our foreign aid program in this country.
I talk about a quarter million people around the globe dying before the age of five. According to UNICEF statistics, every two days more people around this world die before the age of five than abortions are done in Canada in a year.
Really we are not talking here about respect for human life, because if we were talking about respect for human life, at the top end of the priority list would be that quarter million children around the world who are dying, having been bom, and having lived to the age of five. Those children were the hopes of their parents, their aspirations for the future, children as loved as any other children in this country or anywhere else in the world. Yet they have to go through the agony of seeing

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
those children die of terrible diseases prior to the age of five.
Here we are talking about when life begins. Does it begin at conception? Does it begin at birth? A quarter million people will die before this week is out and this legislation is passed.
I do not believe that the pro-life movement has given itself a name that it is justified to have. It is a movement around the world that has been seeking to outlaw abortion, to outlaw access to abortion. It has been successful in a number of countries. It has been successful in Ireland for example, and in Ireland I am told that the rights of a foetus are enshrined in the constitution of that country. Ireland is the country my ancestors come from.
In Ireland the rights of a foetus are enshrined in the constitution of that country, yet it has been demonstrated in WHO statistics that Ireland has the highest per capita abortion rate of any developed country. Some are wealthy enough to be able to go to England to obtain an abortion, or to the continent of Europe. Those who are not wealthy enough either go to back-room abortionists or else attempt to perform the operation on themselves. But Ireland, where the foetus is protected in the constitution, has the highest per capita rate of abortion in the world.
I would like to quote statistics from Brazil because I just came back from there a few days ago. In Brazil abortion is also frowned upon by both the church and the state. I am told that in Brazil there are abortion clinics where one can obtain an abortion for something like $100 to $1,000. Most women in Brazil cannot afford to pay that kind of money for an abortion and so they perform abortions on themselves. As a result, an estimated three to five million clandestine abortions take place eveiy year in Brazil, a country with a total population of 145 million. This gives Brazil the leading share of the world's 65 million abortions, according to the World Health Organization. Research in Brazil estimates that 10,000 Brazilian women die each year from self-induced abortions. World-wide, 150,000 to 200,000 women die annually as a result of complications related to abortions.
Thirty to forty per cent of the half million pregnancy-related deaths that are estimated by the World Health Organization to take place each year, are the result of
botched, clandestine abortions. The statistics indicate that another 200,000 Brazilian women are put into hospital each year because they have been mutilated by or suffered complications from abortions.
What I am suggesting to members of the House of Commons is that we should clearly think about what we are doing here today. Why are we passing this legislation? What we are doing to doctors is making sure that the public and the anti-abortion activist groups can look over their shoulders to determine whether they are making the right medical decisions. I am not sure that that is the right thing to do.
What we are doing is making sure that disgruntled boyfriends, spouses or organizations that have taken it upon themselves to protect foetuses are going to examine every single abortion operation that takes place in this country and perhaps drag it into court in order to prevent abortion, disqualify doctors or make abortion much more difficult.
I am against the number of abortions that are taking place in this country. I think at roughly 65,000, the number of abortions in Canada is far too high. But I think there are ways of dealing with that problem without going through the process of criminalizing abortions. As I said before, you do not do away with abortions by criminalizing them, you simply create a lucrative industry for a criminal element in this country that mutilates your wives, your mothers, you daughters, your nieces and your granddaughters; you do not do away with abortion by this kind of legislation.
The way to do away with abortions or reduce the number of abortions is to make it possible for children in this country to be wanted children and to make it possible for children to get information about birth control and contraception so that they can understand the nature of their own sexuality and how to prevent pregnancy when, at a certain age, they begin to experiment with their own sexuality.
I recall a statistic from the American Medical Association. Doctors who were members of the AMA were saying that the highest number of cases coming before them were girls in the age range of 15 years whose first question they asked of their doctors was about pregnancy. The second question they asked was about acne. This is a serious problem when girls of that age do not even understand the basic elements of their sexuality and end
May 24, 1990

up in their doctors' offices wondering if they are pregnant or not.
Surely, this is a failure of our educational system. If this government wants to do something to stop unwanted pregnancies and therefore to stop abortions, what it should be doing is making the kind of education available to our young people and to adults that will assist them in understanding their sexuality, understanding the process of contraception and understanding what their options are.
The second thing the government should be doing is making it possible for families in this country to see all children as wanted children and having children as something exciting, expected and anticipated. I have two children, and my wife and I looked forward to having these children, to bring something into our lives which we did not have before. They were wanted children. There was no consideration on our part, ever, to see those pregnancies terminated because these were wanted and loved children, and they are to this very day.
Not all families look upon a new child that way. To some mothers a new child is an absolute terror. How is she going to feed this child? If she is married or partnered with a husband or boy-friend who is abusive, or is likely to sexually or physically assault this child, how can she feel good about bringing this child into the world?
There are 1.3 million Canadians in a country as rich as ours who live below the poverty line. How can families who find themselves living below the poverty line, through no fault of their own, have any hope and expectation? How can they want to bring a child into the world who is the result of an unwanted pregnancy?
What this government must do, and what this Parliament must do, is support families across this country, to make sure that children can be brought up in decent, happy and hopeful surroundings, free of poverty and abuse. That is the kind of thing that this government should commit itself to if it wants to reduce the number of abortions that are taking place in this country.
I think we can reduce the number of abortions in this country, but we cannot do it by recriminalizing abortion. The only way we can do it is by making it possible for
Government Orders
Canadian families and Canadian people to bring up their families in healthy, happy, hopeful surroundings, free of poverty and abuse.
The reason I am voting against this legislation is because it does not do that and it does not provide any hope for that to happen. I would like to see members of the House defeat this legislation and defeat it overwhelmingly.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, the abortion issue has two views that divide our population into opposing communities of thought. Unlike most difficult issues, this one is characterized by the unique fact that neither side has much, if any, capacity to understand or appreciate the views of the other.
What makes a political resolution most difficult is the fact that the pro and anti-abortion persons both hold to their views for moral reasons in an environment charged with emotion, while asserting that their views are logical. Unfortunately, on this issue, I am no different than anyone else. With my vote I will make roughly one-half of my constituents happy, the other may feel somewhat abandoned.
At the outset, I want to indicate that I do not believe that the issue of criminalization of abortion lends itself to the kinds of compromises that would allow for overwhelming public support in light of the range of public attitudes that exist.
Just as importantly, I want to extend my regrets to those whose views are different from mine and at least to allow that while we differ in our understanding of a deeply moral issue, I do not conclude that these are amoral persons, but rather, individuals who have, for whatever reason, come to understand the question of abortion from another perspective.
If there is a correct view, and I believe there is, then its resolution will not be found in law at this time. Likewise, the passage of Bill C-43 will not conclude the national debate. Society will continue to change, and one day a law will likely exist that reflects a significant majority position. In the interim, it is incumbent on those to whom this issue matters most to do what they can to influence society.
My views are pro-life. Therefore, it is only natural that I would, in a perfect world, seek to restrict and limit abortion.

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
As an ethic, I believe that every human being is duty bound to uphold the sanctity of life. If life is to be precious then it must be precious in all stages. By contrast, if one stage of life can be deliberately diminished, can any other stage be reasonably assured?
At the root of this debate on abortion is the fundamental question of when does life begin. There are those who argue that an embryonic foetus is not yet human. I have asked such persons on frequent occasions: "Is it wrong to abort a nine-month old foetus just prior to natural partition?" The answer is a universal yes. Therefore, if it is wrong to abort a child just prior to birth, how can we back up through the gestational period, one second at a time, and find the moment when this developing person is not human?
Mr. Speaker, are not you and I persons who are still developing today? Is not aging a stage of development?
Some have argued that a foetus is not human until after the cerebral cortex is fully developed. They claim that this development is what distinguishes mankind from animals. However, if this to be an accepted standard, then what is to become of those persons who develop Alzheimer's disease?
Those who base their human evaluation of a foetus on the mere question of reasoning power also bring into question the value of those less privileged adult persons whose reasoning powers are, unfortunately, sub-standard. A caring and loving society embraces all persons, with all of their failings and at all stages.
With respect to human value, when any one person is allowed to be restricted from reaching their potential, we are all, in turn, diminished. Our challenge is to seek an ideal world and such a world is one in which each and every human has the opportunity to achieve fulfilment by maximizing their potential.
Now, we come to the matter of the bill that is before us. I believe the bill is an important improvement over the 1968 legislation.
First, it proclaims that abortion is wrong and can only be obtained with the support of a trained medical opinion. Moreover, the bill defines abortion to be wrong to the extent that a breach of condition is considered to be a criminal act and defined as such in the Criminal
Code. Finally, the notion of an arbitrary gestational time period in which abortions are allowed is abandoned in favour of a definition that proclaims it to be wrong to have an abortion at any time except for medical cause.
For all these reasons, I agree with the bill. My single concern is that the medical requirements for the protection of health are too loosely defined. There is a part of my analysis that encourages me to vote against the bill on principle. Abortions will still be allowed, and from my perspective that is wrong. Therefore, a negative vote might be justified.
The counter balancing analysis is, however, more compelling. We must recall the process by which we came to be in this situation.
In the summer of 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that Canada's existing abortion law was unconstitutional, largely because of unbalanced access in various regions of the country. In their judgment, the members of the court effectively ruled out the possibility of a new law that absolutely protected the foetus at all stages for all causes. At the same time, the court indicated that the Parliament of Canada had the right to limit, through law, the basis upon which an abortion could be obtained.
The House was given an opportunity to seek out, from a range of options, a perspective upon which the law could be designed and drafted. What proved to be the case was that there was no more consensus on this issue in the House of Commons than there was in the nation. The House was then faced with the dilemma of accepting a less than perfect law or living in a vacuum of no law.
I recognize that law alone cannot transform a human heart or soul. Law is an important ingredient in the process that involves other institutions and other persuasions.
What I have had to consider is, what kind of society would we have, what kind of protection would there be for the unborn, and what are the possibilities for improved legislation if this bill fails to pass? I am convinced that we need a law, even if the present Parliament cannot grant the law that meets my ideal.
The proposed law does underline the view that human life has unique value. It does make a wrongfully acquired abortion a criminal act. It does avoid an arbitrary
May 24, 1990

judgment about the value of a human being at various stages of gestation.
The single fact that a medical definition is, in my view, imprecise would be the wrong reason to allow society to live for an untold period of time without influence of law on this issue. If the bill were defeated, there would be an absence of a signal for the guidance of society. Moreover, an imperfect law can be built upon and changed over time. The absence of law could propel society into a set of attitudes from which we might never recover.
It is incumbent upon me to express my deep gratitude to the literally thousands of constituents of Crowfoot who have helped me comprehend and resolve my position on this issue. The issue is not concluded. The case is not resolved. However, Parliament and society must walk together for a while longer until a stronger consensus is acquired.
Finally, I want to say that it is not merely a question of abortion. It is also a question of our attitudes towards each other as human beings with respect to sexual relationships.
Sex is not a dirty or smutty issue, or a subject to be hidden from conversation. Rather, it is a matter upon which Canadians everywhere must become more comfortable. Sex education does not mean abandoning responsibilities to the school system and certainly it does not imply that the subject be dismissed in silence.
Too often, pre-school children are given a lesson in sex relations when what they wanted to know was, "Where did I come from?". Likewise, and unfortunately, frequently, teenagers are given lessons in biology when their curiosity is about interpersonal relationships. The matter of "how I am to behave with another" or "what am I to do about these powerful feelings that I have" cannot be answered by showing charts and graphs of the human reproductive system.
We must seek to achieve a society that embraces sexual respect. Sex must be thought of as an instrument of communication in relationships. Sex cannot be an object, exclusive and apart from all other obligations. As a society, we have to mature in the nature of our human relationships and, as a society, we have a long way to go.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? On debate, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
Government Orders


Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, I too welcome the opportunity to express my concerns on Bill C-43.1 supported the bill on second reading so that we all could be afforded the benefit of a committee addressing this complex and highly controversial issue. That has of course occurred. Unfortunately, no amendments were recommended to support more fully my pro-life views. Consequently, I tried to move specific amendments. Again, unfortunately, all were ruled inadmissible. Last night's votes now leave me and all of my colleagues in a very serious and difficult predicament. As others have said this is a very personal and emotional issue.
To begin with, I would like to quote from Mr. Justice Bernier who, on July 26, 1989, in the unreported Daigle case stated:
The child conceived but not yet bom, whatever the definition of his civil status, is a reality which we must acknowledge. He is not an inanimate object, he is the property of no one, he is a living human entity, different from the one of his or her mother who carries him; he is an entity who exists because of two human beings who gave him life, who procreated him; he, to begin with, has a right to life and to protection from those who conceived him or her.
I concur with Mr. Justice Bernier. I too believe we must acknowledge the child conceived but not yet bom. This was the major reason for my moving amendments: to protect specifically the unborn child and to define what in law is a foetus.
The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly requested of Parliament to state its intentions. In the Morgentaler case the justices unanimously were of the opinion that the protection of the foetus was a worthy legislative intent. I believe that the majority of this House would agree as well that the protection of the foetus is a worthy legislative intent. Many of my constituents have clearly indicated that the foetus must be protected. This protection is a duty of the state; just as it appropriately is the duty of the state to protect others who are unable to protect themselves, such as perhaps the mentally ill. However, its intent must be clearly stated. As the Supreme Court of Canada in the Daigle case stated:
One can ask why the Quebec legislation if it had intended to accord a foetus the right to life, would have left the protection of this right in such an uncertain state.
One can ask the same question of Parliament.
The other side of the issue, the rights of women to the security of the person, guaranteed under Section 7 of the charter, cannot be ignored either. We as parliamentari-

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
ans must pay heed to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The intentions of government which guided this new legislation as stated earlier are: first, balancing the woman's constitutional rights with society's interest in the foetus; second, ensuring that fair and reasonable access to abortion is not denied; and, third, ensuring that all abortions are performed by qualified medical practitioners based on a health ground.
The first of these intentions, balancing the woman's constitutional rights with society's interest in the foetus, is one aspect of the present bill that is lacking.
Some have argued that to amend Bill C-43 in any way renders it unconstitutional. I am of the view that the Supreme Court of Canada would not ask Parliament to legislate for the unborn specifically if only to strike it down as unconstitutional.
Mr. Chief Justice Dickson in the Morgentaler case stated:
I agree that protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a
valid governmental objective.
He adds later on page 75:
-state protection of foetal interests may well be deserving of
constitutional recognition under section 1.
Madam Justice Wilson also stated:
I believe that the main objective advanced to justify a restriction
on the pregnant woman's section 7 right is the protection of the
foetus. I think this is a perfectly valid legislative objective.
Others argue, and it may be true, that the criminal sanction does provide for some protection for the unborn by implication. But, this is not adequate. It is inadequate by virtue of the fact that abortions may be performed for any reason falling under mental, physical or psychological domain. An abortion may be performed by virtue of any of those reasons, which is an exhaustive list, a woman may desire to have an abortion, including as a method of birth control.
It is the latter with which I am not at all in agreement. This has not balanced any societal interest in the foetus, no legal personality has been given to the foetus, nor have any rights been confirmed upon the foetus. But most importantly no specific intention has been made by Parliament to protect the foetus.
Such an intention must be clear and unequivocal in the eyes of the court. To this end, last night I expressed my support for several amendments of this bill which I felt would have accomplished that. If the pro-life amendments had passed, I would have no doubt been able to support the bill at third reading. Only then would we have shown an intention to confer rights on the unborn, a measure which is clearly appropriate for Parliament to take, as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada Justices. In my view it is also the duty of Parliament to protect those who are unable to protect themselves.
The question now becomes, because there have not been any pro-life amendments passed, based on my conscience, am I prepared to support the bill at third reading. Madam Speaker, I do not think one can compromise with life and therefore I will not be supporting BUI C-43.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I once again rise to speak during third reading of Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion. I voted for this bill on second reading in the belief and optimism that the government would welcome amendments to clarify and strengthen the intent of the bill.
I must now speak against this bill because, despite the sincere efforts of a good number of my hon. colleagues in proposing amendments to make the bill a viable and meaningful one, to be truly an instrument of protection for the unborn, the government for the most part refused to allow the necessary changes. Therefore, the bill remains unacceptable. It neither promotes, protects, nor preserves fundamental Canadian values such as respect for human life, particularly the lives of unborn children who will be the women and men of the future.
It does not defend the most vulnerable and defenceless. Let us remind ourselves that unborn children can only articulate their aspirations through our own feelings, love, sacrifices and compassion.
Also, the bill does not address the rightful concerns and needs of women. It does not provide for a balance of rights, not even a compromise. Rather it is a capitulation of both the unborn's and the woman's rights.
On January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada declared Canada's abortion law unconstitutional on procedural grounds and not, I repeat, not on the basis that abortion is a constitutional right. In fact, the
May 24, 1990

Supreme Court clearly indicated the state has a legitimate interest to protect the foetus, the unborn child.
Also, the Chairman of the Civil Liberties section of the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Bar Association has noted:
Careful review of the decision reveals that far from vesting an untrammelled right to abortion, the court has left Parliament leeway to change the law in ways that are significantly more favourable to the preservation of foetal life than the law which the court struck down.
Regrettably, the bill now before us is more permissive than the law which was struck down.
Indeed, there is no constitutional right to abortion. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically mentions voting, religion, language and minority rights. It does not contain anything about the right to abortion. I will therefore never fathom, and I am confident all Canadians are with me on this sentiment, that the infliction of death on innocent human lives in the wombs of their mothers would ever be a legitimate exercise of anyone's right unless there is a compelling, serious and substantive medical reason or reasons for that given pregnancy that imminently threatens the life and health of the pregnant mother and for which medical condition no alternative treatment exists.
As Mr. Justice William McIntyre pointed out when the Supreme Court of Canada rendered the old law ineffective, there has always been a clear recognition of a public interest in the protection of the unborn. There has been no evidence of any general acceptance of the concept of abortion at will in our society. In fact, public opinion polls have consistently indicated that roughly 70 per cent of Canadians oppose elective abortion, suggesting that some type of genuine medical threat ought to exist before abortion is allowed.
Admittedly, some of the defeated amendments would probably be violations of security of the person under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but this would not have rendered such amendments unconstitutional. Chief Justice Dickson explained this in the Morgentaler case:
I wish to reiterate that finding a violation of security of the person does not end the inquiry on Section 7 of the Charter. Parliament could choose to infringe security of the person if it did so in a manner consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.
Government Orders
Indeed, the protection of the foetus is a concern that outweighs the woman's right not to carry the foetus to term, unless genuine medical threats exist.
We must protect the most defenceless of us if we are to maintain a strong foundation to protect the rights of all of us.
During its appearance before the legislative committee that examined this bill, the family and friends of the handicapped made the following observation:
Bill C-43 represents an attack upon the efforts of the disabled to obtain equality in society and win the dignity and respect to which they are entitled. The Bill would allow for abortion for the widest possible reasons. It would enshrine in law a principle that the lives of some may be destroyed for the convenience of others.
It continued:
It is true that the Bill does not make any explicit reference to handicapped children. However, it does allow abortion where psychological health is threatened. The Law Reform Commission Report of last year made clear that such a clause can be used to authorize aborting disabled children.
This is a major flaw in the bill. We have to recognize that the unborn are human beings. For centuries the English common law of property has recognized unborn children as autonomous human beings and their property rights have been protected by law. In 1795, an English court interpreted the meaning of "children" in a last will and testament to include a child "in the womb" of their mothers.
Under tort law, learned authorities have maintained "that the unborn child in the path of an automobile is as much a person in the street as the mother". How then can we as Canadians and parliamentarians accept that such an unborn child becomes less a person when instead of an automobile, a physicians's forceps, suction machine, a salt or hormonal solution is used to cause that unborn child's death?
The proclamation by the Supreme Court of Canada that the state has a legislative interest to protect the foetus is a tacit admission that once human life has commenced in the womb of the mother the state not only has the right but the duty of safeguarding that unborn human life, and through this protection, protects and preserves society itself.
What do we have in this bill? Health is defined as including:

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
For greater certainty, physical, mental and psychological, health. In common language this in effect is abortion on choice.
Why? When the Canadian Medical Association appeared before the legislative committee, it said:
It is recognized that 85 per cent to 95 per cent of induced abortions are done for psychiatric reasons, but there are very few absolute psychiatric reasons that are a threat to life-
The Canadian Physicians for Life, also appearing before the committee, confirmed that 96 per cent of abortions are performed for non-medical reasons.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women also testified before the legislative committee:
Women have abortions for many reasons. Most of them are social and economic in origin.
Indeed, the loose definition for health would make this bill a legal prescription for abortion on demand.
In introducing this legislation, the Minister of Justice stated:
This bill has been carefully drafted to achieve a delicate balance between the conflicting views on the abortion issue.
The minister is only partly correct. In defending the government's approach to rejecting all amendments the same minister said:
Any amendment to the bill could be perceived as unfairly favouring the state's interest in protecting the foetus to the detriment of the woman's constitutional right to security of the person could endanger the legislation's constitutional validity.
Only the Supreme Court of Canada can make a definitive determination of the constitutional validity of any law passed by Parliament. Both the Minister of Justice and the Law Reform Commission agreed to this view during their appearances before the legislative committee. Hence, the government should have allowed amendments to clarify and insist that only genuine medical threats to the life and health of the pregnant woman could constitute valid indication for abortion. That I attempted to do. Unfortunately, my amendments were defeated. This government chose not to make that choice.
Many submissions to the legislative committee supported the necessity for many amendments.
Indeed, this bill, unamended, is tantamount to abortion on demand, which is a perversion of the purposes of both law and medicine. Law in a civilized country is meant to preserve justice and to protect the weak from abuses by the strong. Medicine is meant to protect life. When legislation permits abortion on demand, it violates both.
Modem science and medicine are much too far advanced to permit the fiction that the being which inhabits a pregnant woman's womb is not a human being. From the moment of conception the foetus has all the necessary genetic material which makes it a distinctive individual, coded into its own DNA which is different from anyone else's, and unmistakably human. While still in the womb, the foetus is a doctor's patient, just like its mother, and with science at its present stages, can be operated on and treated while still in the womb. That is why we have departments of obstetrics in schools of medicine and in hospitals. That is why the discipline of perinatology has evolved in medicine. Any argument which does not recognize the human nature of the foetus is becoming every day more patently untenable.
Like any individual living outside the womb, the foetus must be granted the same rights to life and liberty as any other human life. In any society which strives to maintain liberty, limits must be drawn. No liberty is absolute in this world; instead, each person's liberty is limited by the liberty of others. It is largely unquestioned that the law is right to lock up thieves and murderers, to breach the security of their persons, to deprive them of their personal liberty of movement because it has been used to violate the liberty of other individuals in the society.
In the same way, the foetus' right to the most basic liberty, the liberty to live, should not be overruled by the mother's right to choose in the absence of genuine medical threats. Abortion on demand violates this basic principle. It claims the woman's liberty to be limitless vis-a-vis the liberty of her unborn child. The liberty of the foetus to live and exercise further liberty must be protected only if the mother so wishes. This in effect is a denial of the individual humanity of the foetus because it is a denial of the rights which belong to human beings by virtue of their humanity. Any denial of the humanity of the foetus is simply untenable.
May 24, 1990

The problems to which abortion seems to be the solution must be addressed. Although some women use abortion simply as a matter of birth control, a tragedy which must be stopped as soon as possible for we cannot as a compassionate and caring society continue to condone some 70,000 deaths of unborn babies every year, there are many who would appeal to such an answer only in the case of severe problems. A simple prohibition of abortion is not a sufficient or compassionate answer either.
The most clear-cut of these problems occurs when the mother's life is physically threatened by her pregnancy. In such extraordinary circumstances, the same exception which is made for self-defence in other circumstances can be applied. The chances of death of the mother must be weighed against a genuine concern for the foetus as a human being in its own right. Once the medical profession is convinced that the risks to the mother's life are great enough to warrant the use of abortion to save her life, then in such circumstances the mother should be persuaded to agree to the medical procedure.
Such cases, however, occur comparatively rarely in the context of the many abortions which are performed. Other cases involve a wide range of less clear-cut considerations. Among these are societal problems which have both economic and psychological ramifications for a prospective mother.
More provisions to deal with these problems must be made, such as homes for single mothers during pregnancy, financial assistance, child care centres, educational programs, and other services as may be helpful. Governments are duty bound to provide them to solve the causes of why some pregnant women consider abortion.
Most important, perhaps, better counselling must be provided so that individuals are truly able to decide what to do both in order to avoid unplanned pregnancies and in order to deal with them without sacrificing the child. Many women who choose to undergo abortions have not been acquainted with the other options including adoption, nor with the devastating physical and psychological trauma on them of having an abortion. These were startling revelations made before the legislative committee that examined this bill.
Government Orders
A law restricting abortion only to medical indications is not punitive to women. It is in a very real sense a guide or a legal tool to protect their interests during their hours of need. Both child and parents have needs and both must be addressed, neither one being sacrificed to the other. Abortion on demand effectively addresses neither in that it fails to deal with the root problems, making a pregnant woman opt for abortion and may cause further damage to her at the same time as her child is killed.
Some of my colleagues in this House have argued against placing the subject of abortion in the Criminal Code of Canada. In reply, I would like to quote from a legal scholar, Mr. Joseph Maingot of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, who said:
The criminal law can make a significant contribution by addressing the issue of abortion. Criminal prohibitions on abortions are desirable for both functional and symbolic reasons. Functional, because criminal prohibitions will reduce, although not eliminate, abortions. Since foetal life deserves legal protection, it follows that a reduction in abortions is a net social benefit. The symbolic function of the criminal law is our nation's fundamental statement of public policy. It is the instrument by which the community draws a line between the tolerable and the intolerable. Criminal law defines those whose interests are worthy of respect and protection and in my view, they should include all members of the human family. Ultimately, the criminal law is a mirror of what we are; it reflects our commitment, or lack of commitment, to human dignity and equality.
That is why we have laws directed at degrading pornography, against hate, against child abuse, and laws on affirmative action programs. The state has a key role to play in the development of a collective conscience to sustain social peace and respect for citizens of different viewpoints. Any law shapes and reflects the collective conscience of any society. We should have laws that will continue to preserve, promote, and protect Canadian values.
In conclusion, Bill C-43 could make legitimate, even noble, the performance of abortion outside the tradition of medical practice. I deeply believe that we need to rethink Canadian values as I stated at the beginning of my debate. We must protect the most vulnerable and defenceless in our society, epitomized by the unborn children whose aspirations for life can only be realized when we adults in Parliament, men and women alike, sensitively reflect their aspirations by passage of a law that truly protects the lives of the unborn in the wombs

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
of their mothers. Let us say yes to life at all times and no to abortion on simple choice.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I totally disagree with the orientation of the previous member. I think that a woman has every right to reproductive choice.
I want to ask him a couple of questions of a little more technical nature, since he takes the stand that a woman has no right to reproductive choice. Would he comment, first of all, on whether he opposes the use of IUDs or the morning-after pill, both of which are a form of medical treatment that allows a woman not to carry through a pregnancy after fertilization takes place?
If he feels that a woman has no choice in reproductive matters, does he support her right to birth control, to use both chemical and mechanical forms of birth control, or does he feel that a woman is in a position where the only time she is permitted to be involved in intercourse is when conception is to take place?
I think that those are the logical extensions of what the member is saying, that a woman has no choice in terms of her reproductive capacity.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, it is a fundamental principle in cross-examination even in a court of law that you do not answer your own question because you are likely to be wrong in the answers you will give yourself. That is exactly what happened. The hon. member asked a question. He assumed I had answered it, but completely wrong.
As to the question of whether I believe in reproductive choice, I do not even know whether we agree on the definition of reproductive choice and what is reproduction.
Reproduction is when you begin from nowhere, from nothing. Once you have that something, you have reproduced a product, and that is what I call reproduction. If what he believes I am asking, and it is a big if, is that after a product has been produced you can destroy this product, human life, then of course my answer definitely is no. Whether a woman should marry and reproduce, that is her ultimate and paramount right. Whether a woman should have birth control or not, that also is her right.
Once a human life has been created, created by the Supreme Being, that human life must be protected. Let me remind my hon. colleague that even the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Canadian Constitution, invokes in its preamble the supremacy of God and the rule of law. Invoking the supremacy of God indicates that no more shall we have a law which violates the principle of God. Incidentally, I once heard the same sentiments from the lips of a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have heard the hon. member for Surrey North. Somebody else is rising in the House whom I will recognize and then come back to the hon. member. The hon. member for Dartmouth.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North espouse his convictions and views on this very delicate, contentious and difficult matter. There were a few things said on which I would like clarification.
Quotations were made from submissions to the committee of which he was a member, and I assume that he was there for most or nearly all of the presentations. The statistics quoted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North indicate that the vast majority of abortions that are obtained are for social and economic reasons.
Is it the hon. member's belief that if this bill is passed as is, without the accompanying regulations or companion legislation, it would clearly indicate that the government through its agencies and departments is prepared to address those social and economic reasons that many women have to go and seek abortions?
Is it his belief that this bill will lessen the likelihood of this government, or a subsequent government, revisiting the issue and putting in place those very programs which would be necessary so that women who find themselves pregnant do not have to seek abortions for social and economic reasons? Our social programs would be expanded and targeted so that would no longer be the case.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his thoughtful questions. Yes, indeed, I was with the legislative committee for most of the time, and yes indeed the vast majority of the bases for abortion as indicated by the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Physicians for Life have been the result of social and economic difficulties. It is my belief, which is shared by many Canadians, that if we allow this bill to pass as is, unamended, the words "psychological health" could be used-and the Minister of Justice has indicated
May 24, 1990

that-to include social and economic difficulties as a consequence of poverty.
Could a government of the day be complacent and not address real issues of poverty, real need for assistance for the needy? Yes, I believe that that is a real possibility; in fact I would submit a real probability. That is why I am very concerned that the bill, unamended, is unacceptable both to me and my constituents of Winnipeg North.
Jim Karpoff (Surrey North): Madam Speaker, I asked the member whether he agreed that a woman had the right to use two forms of birth control, IUD and the morning-after pill. He neglected or refused to answer them.
I ask him again: Does he believe that the woman has the right to use an IUD and the morning-after pill?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, my answer is that I do not believe in the morning-after pill. In terms of the IUD, I think there are better forms of birth control than that. That is fraught with dangers.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I know that by now everyone in this House knows my intense and deeply felt opposition to this legislation, Bill C-43. My party position has been brought to question in this House of Commons. The position of the New Democratic Party seems to be thought of as extremist by some members here, trying to rationalize their illogical support for this bill.
I stand for family planning education. I stand for research into safe and effective contraception. I stand for support for pregnant women and for families. This is a social policy approach to the abortion issue, rather than an ineffective criminal law approach.
Some people then may find family planning to be an extreme position. Some people seem to find support for families extremist. Some people seem to find equality for women, the need to be able to make decisions about our own bodies and our own lives extremist.
Government Orders
No one wants to face an unwanted pregnancy. The solution is to eliminate or at least reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, not to criminalize abortion.
It is a national tragedy that support and equality for women are considered to be extremist views in this country, and seen in the same light as wishing to give a zygote full legal and social rights as a human being. It is an appalling contradiction.
In British Columbia and in Ontario women entering clinics are harassed and intimidated. The Everywoman's Health Centre in Vancouver was broken into and the medical equipment there worth thousands of thousands of dollars was vandalized and destroyed.
Some of my colleagues and I have received threats of physical violence from an organization. This is what is really extreme, not views that support women, children and the family. Equality for women, the right to decide our own fate, is not extremist.
When members here talk about a balance of rights, they should consider what we are really talking about. The Tories are being pressured by cabinet to vote for this criminal bill, something which was so evident last night.
Pro-choice Tories are told this bill will have absolutely no negative effects on women. Anti-choice Tories are told that it may not be everything they want, but that it does encompass the principles that they stand for-criminalization from conception onwards.
To believe that the bill will have absolutely no negative effect on women is to ignore Canada's top legal experts, Canada's medical authorities and the majority of the women in this nation from coast to coast who know this first-hand. It is to ignore what they are saying.
If this bill is to have no effect and there will be no prosecutions, as the Minister of Justice would have us believe, then it is an improper use of the Criminal Code. If it will have an effect and charges will be laid, as under every other criminal abortion law we have had in Canada, then the effect on the women and the doctors will be profound.
Not only is Bill C-43 a bad law because it is a lie, it is simply a bad piece of legislation according to a majority of respected legal experts in this country. Of 18 constitutional lawyers at the most respected law schools in this

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
country, 17 of them seriously challenged the validity of the justice minister's legal arguments in support of Bill C-43. They have called it "legal nonsense".
Professor Ryder from Osgoode Hall law school states:
-it creates no entitlement whatsoever; -Bill C-43 will do nothing to remove the provinces' ability to place restrictions on funding and access to abortion.
The purpose of criminal law is to punish, deter and stigmatize conduct that is inimical to the public interest. Criminal law takes the form of a prohibition coupled with a penalty. Given these characteristics of criminal provisions, it is an oxymoron to speak of a criminal law entitlement. Indeed, recriminalizing abortion will place the procedure once again under a shroud of immorality, and consequently will deter women from seeking access and will deter doctors, hospitals and governments from providing services. This suggests that the true basis of Bill C-43 is the government's accordance of a moral status to the foetus that transcends and is independent of women's priorities and aspirations.
He goes on to state:
The Justice Minister has claimed that "by occupying the field" of abortion regulation with Bill C-43, the doctrine of federal paramountcy will prevent the provinces from further restricting access. With all due respect, the Justice Minister is relying on a long abandoned conception of federal paramountcy.
Two University of Victoria law professors say that the minister's legal arguments are: "untenable" and "simply wrong". They say the bill does not create entitlement. They say she "does not provide a convincing rationale for the enactment of a federal abortion law".
Two University of Ottawa professors concur that the minister's arguments are "totally without merit from a constitutional point of view". They say it does not create any sort of national standard for abortion.
They wrote:
It is clear that the federal government has several statutory mechanisms available to regulate abortion standards at a national level. There is therefore no factual basis for the claim that a Criminal Code provision is necessary to create a national standard for entitlement to abortion services.
They go on to state:
The absence of federal criminal legislation in relation to abortion does not in any way modify or expand the provinces' legislative authority over abortion.
Bill C-43 will have a detrimental effect on access. Doctors and women told the legislative committee this over and over again.
Doctors who came to us from the Province of Quebec said that up to one-third of the doctors in that province who are currently performing abortions will stop if this bill becomes law.
There is only one doctor in all of Newfoundland who performs abortions.
I think it is important that we look at what the situation is like in this country right now, today, with no law.
This doctor is based at the St. John's General Hospital in Newfoundland. The General's policy is to provide only early abortions and to require approval by a gynaecologist, a psychiatrist, a social worker and counselling by a registered nurse. These access barriers are in no way contradicted by Bill C-43.
In fact Bill C-43 encourages these types of referrals because of its health criteria.
Bill C-43 does not provide any kind of national standard. The St. John's General will continue to have these built-in delays and referrals, while the Morgental-er Clinic in Montreal will continue to place no barriers before women to abortion. Thus there is no national standard.
No hospital in Prince Edward Island will perform abortions today. In P.E.I. the province will not pay for an out-of-province abortion unless a five-doctor panel approves the woman's reasons for having one. Few applications are approved and costly travel expenses are never reimbursed.
Bill C-43 will not change things for the women of Prince Edward Island. Criminal law does not change stringent and restrictive provincial health practices.
In Nova Scotia, a law was passed to outlaw health clinics that provide abortion services. C-43 will not outlaw this Nova Scotian law. In fact, doctors who provide the only legal abortions in Nova Scotia at the Victoria General Hospital have said that if this bill passes, they will cease to do so. We have that from the hon. member for Halifax. She released a letter from a doctor there who has said that. This would leave no access in Nova Scotia at all, directly because of Bill C-43.
May 24, 1990

New Brunswick requires the approval of two doctors before it will pay for an abortion. Bill C-43 does not touch this requirement in any way.
Under Bill C-43, if a province wanted a 25-doctor panel to approve an abortion, it would still be legal and perfectly valid under this bill.
Bill C-43 has no effect on provincial health regulations, other than to make them more stringent in order to comply with the health requirements of Bill C-43.
In my province of British Columbia, the right-wing Social Credit government tried to withdraw funding for abortions. It did withdraw funding for abortions for a time after the Morgentaler decision came down, and then was made to stop that by the courts. That province is spending $20 million to try to discourage abortions.
Bill C-43 will have no effect on this other than to encourage the abuse of the law in provinces where the anti-choice movement or the government in that province is strong and rather bizarre, as in my home province of British Columbia.
Anti-choice zealots have chained themselves to clinics. They have defied injunctions. They have risked jail. They have been in jail. They have been fined. They have risked injury. These are the very people who will be using Bill C-43 against women and against doctors.
I am not making this up. We have press reports which state that the anti-choice people themselves have indicated that when this bill is passed they will use it as another legal tool to harass women and doctors. They have made promises to do that.
I have to say that as a woman I really did feel betrayed last night when my amendment, the only pro-choice amendment proposed to this bill, was defeated by such a wide margin. It was defeated by more votes than the regressive anti-women, anti-choice amendments were defeated.
Some women have believed that simply by voting for women candidates their views will be represented in this House of Commons. The votes last night on the amendments to the abortion bill proved that that theory is sadly mistaken.
Government Orders
I believe that the Tory women on the other side of the House really sold out the women of Canada, along with the government. Not one woman on that side of that House supported the only pro-choice amendment.
I do want to thank the members in this House who did support the amendment for women's rights to decide for ourselves just how many children we will have and when we will have them.
Every member of my caucus, man and woman, who was here voted for the pro-choice amendment. Five Liberals out of a caucus of 84 voted for the pro-choice amendment. Only two Tory members in this House of Commons voted in favour of choice. This government has a huge majority in this House of Commons and yet only two members on that side of the House voted in favour of the only pro-choice amendment. Those two were men. Not one Tory woman stood up for choice.
The commitment of these individual Liberal and Tory women for choice who did support my amendment is strong. Unfortunately, those Liberals are a minority in their caucus and the Tories were facing incredible pressure to vote against choice.
When Canadians are at the ballot box they will know that if they want to vote for choice, if they really want to vote for the fundamental equality issue for women, then they must vote for the New Democratic Party.
This bill does not define entitlement. It is a bill of disentitlement.
It states that women are not entitled to abortions unless they meet criteria unrelated to their own goals and aspirations and unless they meet the criteria set out by the state. This is supposed to be a government that is opposed to state intervention. This is a government which keeps telling us over and over again that it does not believe in state intervention in the marketplace, in rent controls and all those kinds of social programs that my party says the state belongs in. Yet this government wants to be involved in and have state control over the most intimate, personal, and agonizing decision that a woman is ever forced to make. It is absolutely bizarre.
The justice minister said today that "criminalization" is an emotional word and that it was misleading. It is an emotional word and it brings out strong emotions. Unfortunately, it is deadly accurate in this case.

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
This bill makes abortion a crime. You bet it is an emotional word to those doctors who will now have the possibility of criminal charges hanging over their heads. You bet it is an emotional word to a physician like Dr. Henry Morgentaler who spent time in jail, who was convicted under the last criminal abortion law. It is certainly an emotional word to the millions of Canadian women who thought that, finally, after the Supreme Court threw out the last criminal law on abortion, they would no longer be criminals for deciding the number and spacing of their children, that they were now free to choose what to do and what decisions to make about their own reproductive health and about their own lives.
We have seen demonstrations right across this country because the recriminalization of abortion is an emotional time in our history. It seems as though we are going back to the 19th century.
It is a sad time in our history. It is a time when we are turning our backs on women and children. We are ignoring family planning by cutting down on the social support network that makes it easier for women to bring children into this world. This a time when we have taken the regressive step of putting abortion back into the Criminal Code, instead of the progressive step of making this a society in which women feel that they can bring children into a society in which women have real choices.
Other people have said that this criminal bill is a matter of values. I agree. I think that recriminalizing abortion says a great deal about what we really think about women.
This bill needs to be defeated on principle and because of the real effect it will have. The minister has said many times that society has an interest in protecting the foetus. Instead of criminalizing abortion, which is an ineffective way of protecting the foetus, why is the government not concerned about reproductive health hazards in the workplace? Why is this government not concerned about the environment and poverty? These are the real threats to the foetus.
In poor parts of Montreal the incidence of low birth weight babies is comparable to that of the Third World because their mothers were malnourished during their pregnancy. It is appalling. The minister can best advocate the protection of the foetus and of women's health through social policy measures, not a criminal act that
will jail doctors for up to two years and make women liable to aiding and abetting sections of the Criminal Code.
There was a time not long ago that the minister was advocating women's rights rather than foetal rights.
I want to quote from an editorial which appeared in The Vancouver Sun of February 11, 1988. This goes back to just after the Morgentaler decision was handed down in the Supreme Court. Before the minister came out against her former leader, Premier Bill Vander Zalm, The Vancouver Sun wrote:
It was quite a sight, a sight I will never forget, to see Cabinet aspirant Kim Campbell do a crab-like scuttle from the television reporter who asked her if her opinion on abortion coincided with the Premier's. Regardless of her views on abortion, Ms. Campbell is too smart to elucidate them. A woman tangibly eager for power, ambition cloaks her like a mantle. Ms. Campbell will keep her trap shut.
The current Minister of Justice read that. It must have had an impact on her because she then called The Vancouver Sun columnist Nicole Parton and, with courage, she put her career on the line to stand up for what she believed in.
She told Parton that the Socred caucus was unwilling to break ranks with Vander Zalm because of caucus solidarity and that it was essential to the government, but that she was now willing to break that caucus solidarity.
She is in the same position now, except it seems that her ambitions have been realized. She is now in cabinet. It is ironic that her name is now on the bill that will put abortion back into the Criminal Code. Where is that courage that we all admired a few years ago?
Yesterday, at my constituency office, after I had spoken on the amendments in the House of Commons, a call came in on my answering machine. It was a call from a young woman. She was crying. I want to take a moment just to let you know what she said. It was a very emotional message.
I will read to this House exactly as she said it, because I think this is what we are talking about. This is the kind of situation and the concern that women have:
Hi Dawn. Thank you very much for speaking out in Parliament in favour of pro-choice. When I was 17, the child my father gave me when he raped me, he forced to have aborted. He drove me to Washington State and I had no say in the matter. I am pro-choice because that decision was mine to make and not his. How I feel about it is my choice, my decision and no one has the right to take that away
May 24, 1990

from me-certainly not a bunch of parliamentarians who hang around and get paid $65,000 a year to spout their-
I will leave that word blank. She then said:
I am being abusive. I am sorry. Good-bye.
I think those comments from that young woman tell us exactly what we are talking about here today. It is an emotional debate. It is an emotional issue. It is not going to go away. It is not going to go away when this bill passes. There will be challenges.
I urge all members to think carefully again, to re-examine their position and vote against Bill C-43.


Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Madam Speaker, the issue of abortion is a matter that has caused great distress and concern among many people, women and men, in my constituency of Highlands-Canso in particular since the restrictions on this practice were removed as a result of the Supreme Court decision in 1988.
There is no question that I have received more mail from my riding on this issue than on any other issue. I want to quote a few letters from some of the constituents who have written to me expressing their views that legislation to restrict this practice and to prevent this tragedy from occurring be re-introduced.
The first letter comes from Sister Theresa LeBIanc of Antigonish who writes:
Surely in a country such as ours, where human rights are respected, the most fundamental right, the right to life, will be guaranteed and protected by Canadian legislation to the most helpless of all, the unborn.
Another woman from my riding also wrote. She is Mrs. Vera Landry of River Bourgeois, and she says:
I am upset and ashamed that as women we would even consider claiming the right to kill another innocent human being in an effort to further our own equality. The quest for justice for women must not be accomplished by denying justice to others.
A third person, Mr. Duncan Maclsaac of Judique, writes:
The divisive issue of abortion is a tremendous test of moral leadership for those who seek truth and desire to uphold life.
The debate we are involved in tonight is about life and about rights, fundamental human rights for all human beings from the moment of conception, from the mo-
Govemment Orders
ment that we can define their possibility as human beings. It is that which must not be forgotten. That is what this debate is all about.
Bill C-43 was an attempt by this government at a law to legislate on abortion. At second reading I said that this bill, as drafted, was deeply flawed. I pointed out areas in which I thought the bill was vague and ambiguous. Yet, because I know that Canadians abhor the current legislative vacuum and want legislation that would express our desire for restrictions and would support Canadians so that abortions would be reduced, I voted for this legislation at second reading. I voted for it so that it could go forward to the committee stage to be clarified, strengthened, and improved.
Unfortunately, despite the testimony of many distinguished interveners, Bill C-43 emerged from committee unchanged. Amendments were proposed which were considered yesterday at the report stage which would have improved this bill, which would have strengthened it in many respects. I voted for many of these amendments. In fact, I even introduced one myself. I voted for these amendments in the hope that we could have legislation on the books which would reflect the views of society that abortion is not a practice which we in this civilized society condone.
I voted for several of these amendments in the hope that we could strengthen this bill, so that it would convey that message to Canadians. Unfortunately, none of those amendments were accepted and it is with regret that I must say tonight that I will be voting against this bill at third reading. I will be voting against this bill because it does not accomplish what the majority of Canadians want, which is legislation that will be a reflection of Canadian society at this point in time.
Bill C-43, as presently drafted, is a divisive bill. It drives an even larger wedge between already vehement opposites in this debate. It encourages the kind of debate which has taken place in Canada recently, a debate which ignores the shared ends of each side and concentrates on the differences. It concentrates on the extreme positions which have been advocated by those who proclaim themselves to be pro-life and those who proclaim themselves to be pro-choice. The pro-choicers accuse the other side of being anti-choice and the

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
pro-lifers accuse the other side of being pro-death, extreme labels which have polarized Canadians.
Unfortunately, Bill C-43 has contributed to and promoted that kind of negative debate. The tragedy of the debate is that is focused on the means and not on the ends. Nobody likes abortion. What is required is a policy and program of the government to bring down abortions. That program has to include an abortion law which conveys that message, but it has to be broader than an abortion law.
No one is naive enough to believe that by itself legislation on abortion is going to accomplish a reduction in abortion. If there is a commitment toward this, it has to be part of a much broader program of support and policies by this government, a program of policies which affirms life, which affirms values that we share as Canadians, including family values and values that respect life at all stages.
We must reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through value-based sex and family planning education. We must be open and up front with our children so we may be able to face the overwhelming pressures of adolescence and adulthood. We must use education in our homes, our churches and our schools to instil in our young adults a clear sense of sexual knowledge, morality and responsibility.
We must address socio-economic concerns facing pregnant women today. Child care must be addressed by this government now, not at the time of the next election. Equal pay and opportunity remain huge obstacles. The recently released report of the task force on barriers to women in the Public Service confirms this. Stricter enforcement of support agreements is another urgent requirement. The recently established Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act is a step in the right direction, but it must be strengthened. Affordable housing is desperately required, especially in cities with a high living standard and a low vacancy rate.
Of course we must go beyond legislation and programs of government to work toward changing the social attitudes we express as a society. On this point the Catholic Conference of Bishops, in their testimony before the committee studying Bill C-43, was particularly eloquent. Let me quote a passage from that testimony. The bishops said:
Government reforms are not sufficient. They must be accompanied by social changes throughout society. Communities must be more responsive to families and women in need. Adoption needs to be promoted as a solution to an unwanted pregnancy but with greater compassion for the agony of giving up a child. Educational, cultural and other institutions, including the Catholic Church, must be more active in promoting the equality of women and respect for them as persons. Some male attitudes and behaviour have to change radically if there is to be an end to violence against women, more coresponsibility in parenting and more respectful inter-personal relationships.
These are challenges for us as a civilized society. They are challenges we will constantly be required to meet, and a legislative framework that includes legislation respecting abortion is part of that support mechanism for fostering the kind of attitudes that we need to foster in a society that protects rights for everyone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: I would like now to ask the hon. member to conclude, please.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: This debate will continue long after this vote and long after we have been replaced as members in this chamber. Let us be able to say, though, that in our debate we have furthered not our own agendas but the cause of Canadian women and their children.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I rose in this House and spoke on report stage and I said that I was sad about what had happened, about how 25 years after the first go-around on this issue we were back again arguing the same points and discussing the same things. Tonight, however, while I am still sad, I am also angry. I am angry because last night I saw, as the hon. member from New Westminster said in her eloquent comments earlier, the way the votes went and the lack of comprehension by so many in the House about this issue and the all too strong comprehension by too many others.
The root problem here is that true equality for women does not exist in our country, no matter how many women MPs, cabinet ministers, deputy speakers, party leaders, leadership candidates, vice-regals, and onward and upward women in positions of prominence we have. It does not exist, and there is not a woman who sits in the House or in the country who does not know in her secret soul that equality does not exist.
May 24, 1990

The term "reproductive choice" has become synonymous with the word "abortion". It should not be. It should mean a range of choices which would preclude the necessity for abortion, but that range of choices is not available for women in this country or indeed any country in the western world.
Regarding the kinds of reactions to women that we have heard over the last several days, I compliment the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso on his most reasoned remarks and for his support for social programs, despite the fact that we disagree on the most basic issue. Yesterday, when speaking against some of the amendments, I talked about the fact that the problem can be solved only by fostering equality and the kinds of social support networks necessary to make this society friendly for women and children. "Friendly" may be too strong a word. The word I really mean is basically "decent". It is not, and again, every member knows it is not for far too many women and children.
I have a good friend in Halifax at my old university, Mount Saint Vincent, who is an historian and a feminist. I remember her once saying to a class in women's studies that the women's movement is the most cataclysmic movement in social history, certainly since the Industrial Revolution, and possibly even more cataclysmic than the Industrial Revolution. All I can say-I do not say it with humour but with deadly seriousness-is it is amazing that women have managed to achieve this kind of cataclysm given the leg irons that are on them because of this want of equality in our society.
What we see here-I almost hesitate to say this, but I have felt it for a long time-with far too many people in this Chamber who oppose a woman's right to choose is truly a reaction to the women's movement. I do not say that this is the reason for all those who oppose a women's right to choose, but I say it is the reason for a frightening number. Mr. Speaker, if you do not believe me, you should have been at the study of Bill C-43. You would have heard, and I think it would have struck fear into your heart.
We hear, and heard, from men saying: "Women cannot be allowed to do this. Women cannot be allowed to do that." Women are coming to the point where the question of what we are and are not allowed to do will no longer be acceptable.
Government Orders
Over the past two days, I have listened in the House to some things that truly astound me. For example, I have heard that most abortions take place for socio-economic reasons, as if the socio-economic reasons being cited were mere fripperies and women resort to abortion because a pregnancy is merely inconvenient. Do these people live in the real world? Do they live in modern-day Canada where one million children go to food banks? Do they live in real-life Canada where women are subject every day to violence and to death? Do they live in the Canada that less than six months ago saw 14 young women cut down in the prime of their youth and their scholarship because they were women who dared enter a formerly male-dominated profession?
Socio-economic reasons are not fripperies. I suggest to some of my colleagues who sneer at socio-economic reasons that they should perhaps do some visiting in some of the housing projects in this country, in some of the community clinics and in some of the women's centres, those that are able to remain open, to find out the lives of fear, poverty and desperation that so many women live.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you another thing. Many of the women who suffer this way are not, by any means, living in the physical poverty that we can identify in our cities and towns. Many of them are living in an equal poverty of spirit and poverty of choice in some of the finest addresses this country can provide. The enslavement and the enchaining of women goes on, in many cases, undeterred.
We are going to see this bill pass on Tuesday and we are going to see the criminalization of women. We are going to see the criminalization of abortion, which for the past two years has gone on in this country without any law and without an opening of the floodgates, without the moral fabric of the country falling apart and without, God knows, even women managing to take over the political spectrum. This law is unnecessary and it is a fraud. It is an insult to the intelligence and the morality of the women of this country, and also to the intelligence and the morality of the men of this country. Those of us who advocate a woman's right to choose do not say that men have no right in a family decision. Again, when the situation is optimum, when the question to be decided is between two equal partners who take full responsibility for their actions and for the results of their actions, that is one thing. But too many women in Canada face these

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
decisions alone because they have been left and deserted physically, emotionally and morally by their partners.
In my one remaining minute I would like to say that I am tired of the threats I have received. I am tired of being called a baby-killer. I want to say that I received a call today from a young woman from Manitoba who told me that doctors there are already beginning to cancel appointments, so that access in Manitoba is going down. I want to say that I sympathize with the people my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso mentioned. I have had letters from those people too. I want to say that I wish I had the luxury to hold those views, because it would be a luxury to say there is no need for abortion in this country. All of us in the women's movement live for the day when that will be so, but until we root out the causes-poverty, ignorance, violence and fear- the need for abortion will continue. Until we do that, nothing-no law, no government-will stop abortion. It will only drive the practice into the nether world of criminal activity and turn desperate women and sympathetic doctors into fugitives from so-called justice.
Is that what Canadians want, Mr. Speaker? I do not think so.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, before I launch into a full discussion of Bill C-43, I will see if I can get away with a minor bending of the rules by making a comment on the other issue that is before the country. I can tie the two together by saying that I think both the issue of the constitutional crisis that this country faces and the issue of Bill C-43 deal with the same underlying principles. That is the question of whether we, as legislators and parliamentarians, can provide the leadership to develop in this country a sense of tolerance, understanding, compassion and a real belief in the rights of others.
On the issue that others are meeting in this city tonight to deal with and try to come to grips with, I want to offer the wisdom of Dennis Lee. A friend of mine, Elicia Scott, sent me this poem which she found in a book of Dennis Lee's called Garbage Delight. It is called "A Pair of Pants". It reads:
Johnny came from England. Jackie came from France. They went to see a wise man about a pair of pants. One said they're too long. One said they're too little. The wise man took the pair of pants and ripped
them up the middle. Now each one has got a pant leg, each is freezing,
too. And yet it seemed the only thing that anyone could do.
Turning to Bill C-43,1 would like to confirm that along with the other members of my party, I intend to vote against Bill C-43 on third reading. I believe this bill offends the rights of Canadians and, in particular, the rights of women. I believe it is a bill which imposes on doctors a responsibility which is not properly theirs to have. It is a bill which makes a criminal act of an act which should not be seen as a criminal act. It is a bill which will not do its stated purpose of protecting the foetus.
As a Christian and one who has held a position in the Anglican Church of Canada as Vice-Chancellor of the diocese in which I live, I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not speak for the church, and I do so from that perspective and from the perspective of understanding, I believe in the sacredness of human life. I believe an understanding of the sacredness of life cannot lead to the conclusion that abortions, in virtually every case, should be made criminal. Those cases, which are to be exceptions, are to be decided by doctors. This is really not a medical decision.
An attempt to squeeze into this law an idea that the decision in individual cases of whether or not to have an abortion is a medical one is a perversion. I believe, as earnestly as I can, that this bill does not provide a principled answer. It denies the principles enunciated by those who believe that the foetus is a matter of human life, and those who believe that until the foetus is bom, the predominant right is that of the woman. The extent to which the foetus has rights is a matter to be determined in the final analysis by the conscience of the woman who bears the child.
Let me take my time to focus on the comments of the Minister of Justice. The minister has had the responsibility of introducing this bill and seeing it through the House. She has made a number of speeches and comments on the bill. Let me deal with her comments on report stage because I understand that, and having reviewed her comments this morning, I appreciate the fact that this embodies her rationale for what is a profound change in her position. I believe it is not too strong to say it is a betrayal of the position of the rights of women in this country and, therefore, the rights of all Canadians. In her speech to the House on May 22, she first raised the canard that somehow the Supreme Court of Canada imposed an obligation on this House to act. That is simply wrong. Any careful reading of the Supreme Court decisions confound the proposition that she
May 24, 1990

makes that the Supreme Court of Canada in the Mor-gentaler case in effect called on the House of Commons to come up with a law that allegedly balanced the rights of women as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada with the alleged right and the societal interest in the protection of the foetus. The fact is the Supreme Court of Canada said no such thing either in the Morgentaler case, in the Borowski case, or in the Daigle case.
The minister says on page 11666 of Hansard:
It is our role as parliamentarians to bring forward legislation that reasonably reflects the various views and interests of Canadian society in a manner acceptable to that majority of Canadians, and that respects constitutional guarantees.
This bill does not deal and respond to those responsibilities. I suggest on an even higher plane it is critical that the first duty of Parliament in an area of sensitivity such as this, it is our duty to respond to principle and to try to deal with the rights of Canadians irrespective of the majority. As it happens, the majority favours the position of choice. That is an irrelevant argument to the argument of principle which is that surely now as we approach the 21st century the time has come for us as a civilized society to understand that women have the right to choose and make the decision in this most difficult of all decisions.
The Minister of Justice went on to say that the highest court of the land recognized this responsibility by stating in the Morgentaler affair that it was its role to examine the laws and it was the role of Parliament to achieve this balance. Again there is the implication that the court was imposing a duty.
That simply is not consistent with the language of the court's decision. Let me read from the decision of Chief Justice Dickson in the Morgentaler case: "I conclude that the procedures created by section 251 of the Criminal Code for obtaining a therapeutic abortion do not comport with the principles of fundamental justice. Simply put, assuming Parliament can act, it must do so properly." Assuming Parliament can act, and the Chief Justice added emphasis to those words in his decision.
Government Orders
There is no direction by the Supreme Court for Parliament to act. It is an entirely proper position for Parliament to take that there must be no criminal law in the area of abortion; that the issue of abortion is a matter of conscience and of right. It is a difficult decision but it is one which must be left to the women.
In her speech the Minister of Justice went on to talk about the legislative committee. She proclaimed the myth that following months of hearings, including testimony from many individuals and groups expressing strong views at either end of the spectrum of opinion on abortion, the committee recognized its duty to attempt to strike a fair balance between the rights and interests of women and society's concern that the foetus be protected. Over 90 per cent of the briefs and evidence received by that committee were against the bill and called on the committee to reject the bill.
From day one the majority on that committee had its mind made up and was determined to endorse the political solution to the political problem that the government and so many members of the Liberal party had, a solution which is not principled, a solution which will divide this country in the longer run and will destroy lives in the long run.
The minister concluded her remarks by saying: "It would be my hope that these members do not condemn this bill for not reflecting their own personal positions, but recognize its ability to respond to the concerns of their fellow Canadians in a matter that is understandable, workable and fair."
Let us look at the bill and see whether it is understandable, workable or fair. Let me remind the House and the country what this bill provides. It sets out new wording to Section 287 of the Criminal Code, which reads as follows:
287.(1) Every person who induces an abortion on a female person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, unless the abortion is induced by or under the direction of a medical practitioner who is of the opinion that, if the abortion were not induced, the health or life of the female person would be likely to be threatened.
The bill goes on to define "health" to include physical, mental and psychological health.

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
First, this bill clearly makes the inducement of an abortion a criminal offence, except in certain circumstances. Those circumstances affect the opinion of a human medical practitioner who must exercise an opinion. We already know that medical practitioners are going to have different opinions on individual sets of facts. They are asked to form their opinion on the question of whether the abortion, if it were not induced, would put the health or life of the female person in jeopardy. It is expected that the medical practitioners will pass judgment on whether a failure to induce the abortion would cause a threat to physical, mental or psychological health.
What we have here is a disguised failure of this Parliament to make a decision. Instead, it is turned not back to the person who ought to be making what is a moral decision, but instead to medical practitioners who are asked to make it on the vague test of physical, mental or psychological health.
Those from the anti-choice side of this House, who moved amendments last night, were perfectly correct when they said that the language is not certain and not clear. It is doubly not certain and not clear when it is turned over to a medical practitioner who, after all, is not a lawyer. He is asked to express a medical opinion.
The bill is not understandable. It is not workable in that it imposes an onus on those who seek to escape the effect of the criminal law to demonstrate the onus, and it is far from fair. There is no question that there are going to be different views of medical practitioners. Access to abortion is going to vary across the country. There is no distinction made on the basis of age or condition of women, and it is going to be taken outside the realm that it ought to be in in determination.
One set of legal issues, which have been raised by the minister, have been put to the test of law professors and lawyers across the country. In her attempt to justify this bill, the Minister of Justice offered the propositions that, first, there was at law a requirement for a medical justification for legal abortion and that that would create a national standard of entitlement to abortion for Canadian women. The minister secondly argued that it was necessary for Parliament to use its criminal law power to restrict the ways in which provincial legislatures can restrict access to abortion.
Those were two critical arguments that the minister used to justify this legislation and to attempt to persuade, as she apparently has successfully done, her colleagues in the Conservative and Liberal parties to vote for the bill.
A series of legal opinions were sought and there were 17 opinions returned from professors and other experts across the country. Before I get into the detail of them, I just want to read what the Minister of Justice said about these distinguished constitutional experts.
When it was put to her in the Justice Committee on May 10,1990, the Minister of Justice said that she first of all had not read any of the opinions. However, she proceeded to pronounce that their arguments were utterly without foundation. She then went on to say that she did not recognize any of the leading luminaries in constitutional law in Canada in the list of people named in The Globe and Mail article.
The minister appears not to have either taken the trouble to ask for a comprehensive review of the opinions, but she proceeded to dismiss the opinions as coming from those who were beneath her dignity to know.
Let me tell the House about some of the opinions. First of all, may I offer the opinion from the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto of seven professors, one of whom I had as a professor and so did other distinguished members of this House, if I can include myself in that category. However, apparently they failed to get through to the Minister of Justice. I am thinking here of Professor Risk. I include Professors Duclos, Macklem, Rogerson, Colker, Grant and Roach, seven professors from perhaps the most distinguished law school. I hesitate to get too comparative in this, but it is my Alma Mater.
All of them took apart the minister's arguments limb by limb. At the end of this six-page letter of opinion, there is nothing left of the arguments.
On the question of a national standard of entitlement, these professors, as did others, Professor Bruce Ryder from Osgoode Hall, Professor Andrew Petter from the even more distinguished University of Victoria, Martha Jackman, professor of constitutional law, and Sandra Rodgers, professor of medical legal issues at the University of Ottawa and on and on, all make the point, first of all, that this inept bill, Bill C-43, does not create any national entitlement to abortion. Quite the opposite. It
May 24, 1990

makes abortion, in most circumstances, a criminal offence.
Mr. Speaker, I see you waving your finger of one minute at me, so I am going to ask my colleagues if they feel so minded to put a question to me. I will give them, when the time comes, an opportunity to learn even more about the opinion of professors at the various universities on the inadequacies of the Minister of Justice's opinion.
Let me just finish by saying that people across this country do not want this bill. They do not want abortion to be a matter of criminal law. They do not wish the matter turned over simply to doctors to decide. Women across Canada do not want this bill. The courts have made it very clear that this bill, by making abortion illegal, intervenes in one of the most difficult decisions that a person can make.
Let me conclude by quoting from Madam Justice Wilson who said: "This decision, that of having an abortion, is one that will have profound psychological, economic, and social consequences for the pregnant woman. The circumstances giving rise to it can be complex and varied. There may be and usually are powerful considerations militating in opposite directions. It is a decision that deeply reflects the way the woman thinks about herself and her relationship to others and to society at large. It is not just a medical decision. It is a profound social and ethical one as well. Her response to it will be the response of the whole person".
This decision about the future of a foetus is one which is a profound social and ethical question. It is not one that Parliament can make, a Parliament, predominantly, as has been noted, of men who will never face this decision. It is not a decision which doctors can make. It is a decision which women make, and I urge the House to vote against the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: It seems that at least two members have listened to your suggestion for questions and comments and I recognize the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam on a question or comment.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Indeed, I am taking up the suggestion of the hon. member because I am very interested in hearing what is the legal analysis from the 17 law professors. The women in Canada have a
Government Orders
right to have spelled out for them what the analysis is. I would ask the hon. member if he could, in the time allotted for questions and comments, provide me and the women of Canada with that information.


John F. Brewin: I thank my friend for the very perceptive question. I do appreciate it. It does give me a chance to add some remarks which I had hoped to squeeze in in the main part of my speech.
It is perhaps clear on the face of it that the question of national standard of entitlement is not established by this bill. That is a specious argument. Let me go to the second of the two arguments that the minister raised in which he stated: "It is necessary for Parliament to use its criminal law power to restrictive the ways in which provincial legislatures can restrict access to abortion".
There are a number of flaws with that, but the main one is that all of the cases demonstrate clearly that the provincial legislatures operating within their areas of jurisdiction, and in this case probably the area of health, could enact even more restrictive legislation than this Parliament enacts and that such legislation would not be deemed to be in conflict with validly enacted federal legislation.
In the case of car accidents, for example, or car offences, the federal Criminal Code applies one standard. In provincial legislatures which have enacted additional standards, that legislation has been upheld by the courts.
In the justice committee the minister pronounced herself and dismissed all of these arguments as not knowing what they are talking about. She said that they were talking about the paramountcy principle and then proceeded to demonstrate that she did not know anything about the paramountcy principle at all.
The only case that the minister could even refer to was one decided in 1896 on the paramountcy issue, subsequently completely changed and developed in a different direction by courts. The paramountcy issue is the following. If there are conflicting, validly enacted federal and provincial legislation, then the federal law will prevail. But first there must be a finding of valid provincial legislation and then there must be a determination of conflict. It is that point which the minister fails to understand but she demonstrates in her discussion of the

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
Westindorp case, which she completely misunderstands and misquotes.
This legislation does not so occupy the field in the area of abortion that it would prevent more restrictive legislation be enacted by provinces. This law does not establish national standards. This law is not something that is required by the courts.
As we watched the votes unfold last night, the vote by the Liberal Party brought me great sadness. This is a difficult issue to make partisan. Yet by their votes, both the Conservative and Liberal parties demonstrated that when the crunch really comes the talk about women's rights is just talk. A mere handful of Liberals stood up, 5 Liberals out of a caucus of 83 or 84-some of them are off running for leader right now-and voted for the position that abortion should not be a matter of criminal law at all; a handful.
Women across Canada and men across Canada who are concerned about the profound issue of women's rights are going to have to ask themselves, as they move towards future elections, whether it in fact aids the cause of women's rights to have more Liberals in the House. Last night demonstrated beyond doubt that Liberals, as with Conservatives, cannot be counted on to stand with women when it really matters.


Dawn Black: I was
pleased to hear my colleague from Victoria's comments. It is almost a breath of fresh air to hear from a man in this House articulating the position of choice for women in such a clear and forceful manner. It is also a pleasure to hear him look at the legal ramifications of this bill. That leads me to one of the questions that I have.
One of the rationales that we have heard around this place for bringing in criminal legislation has been the Chantal Daigle case last summer, when Canadians from coast to coast were horrified to see this young woman's life displayed across television sets from coast to coast, to have the most intimate details of her life spoken of in cafes, in barber shops, on street comers, in all the places in Canada. People did not like that spectacle. They wanted to ensure that it would not happen again. One of the rationales we keep hearing is, if Bill C-43 passes that will stop that kind of display.
I would like to ask my colleague, how will Bill C-43 stop civil injunctions? Will it, in fact? Or will we continue to see this kind of display, this kind of action by some of the more reactionary, more forceful, more nasty antichoice people in our society?


John F. Brewin: The answer is that the bill will in fact encourage legal action. It will make abortions in most cases illegal. The lines, when they are not illegal are vague. That is an invitation to legal action. It is an invitation to injunctions. The Supreme Court of Canada in the Daigle case made it very clear that it frowned on any law which put women through the court system during pregnancy. I am quite convinced that, in due course, this bill, which we are agonizing through here and which the countiy is agonizing through, will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the hon. member from New Westminster-Burnaby refer to the legal analysis that we have just heard from the hon. member for Victoria and the thoughtful and articulate way in which he has expressed his concern for the legislation that is before us.
I will find it very difficult under the circumstances to be able to put forward the thoughtful, rational words that are necessary. I am afraid that after listening for hours and hours this week to women being denigrated, I am rapidly getting to the point that it is going to be very difficult to maintain rationality, to maintain dignity, or even to maintain the respect that is necessary to speak in this House.
In an article in The Vancouver Province, the Justice Minister stated that the criminal law has two major purposes. First, the preservation of the peace and protection of the public, and secondly, the safeguards of equality, fairness, and a guarantee of the rights and liberties of the individual against the state".
This bill will not preserve peace on the question of abortion. Indeed, the outrage expressed by both sides on this question ensures that the legislation will ensure an ongoing inflamed debate.
With regard to the protection of the public, just what public is the minister suggesting must be protected by this legislation, and from whom?
May 24, 1990

The second purpose, she said, was the safeguard of equity and fairness and a guarantee of rights and liberties of the individual against the state. How does Bill C-43 safeguard and protect equity and fairness, and how does it guarantee the rights of women in Canada?
This is not a compromise bill. This is a bill that recriminalizes abortion. The Liberals want this bill to pass because they would like to have the issue laid to rest in anticipation of forming the next government. The Liberals anticipate that once the bill is in place they will not have to deal with it if indeed they do become the next government.
To those who watched the votes last night it became very clear to Canadian women where the hearts and support of the Liberals are on issues as they pertain to women. The verbal rhetoric will escalate as we go into an election campaign, but unfortunately the Liberal Party has neither the policy nor the will, as evidenced last night, to ensure that Canadian women's rights and justice for Canadian women will prevail under their governments.
For the Tories, this bill, in my view, is a sacrificial offering to the radical fringe, the fringe that does not like turbans, that opposes pay equity and that in many ways has demonstrated that it very much dislikes women. The government is offering up on the sacrificial altar of expediency the right of women to choose.
The Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, parted ways with Bill Vander Zalm and his Socred cronies in Victoria because of his interference on the question of abortion in British Columbia. Women in the riding of Vancouver Centre trusted the Minister of Justice. They believed that she would stand with them on this most basic of rights. They were thrilled, as were many women in this country, when the hon. member was made the first woman justice minister.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre, the Minister of Justice, has broken ranks with her sisters, the women of Canada, the women who supported her, the women who celebrated her appointment with her, and has turned her back on them. She has stood in this House and offered an arrogant rationale implying balance in a bill that devastates the rights of women in this country.
Government Orders
I have a letter addressed to the Minister of Justice that was sent to me by a constituent of mine and that I would like to put on the record. It reads:
Dear Minister,
Re: Proposed Recriminalization of Abortion
I would like to be able to congratulate you on your appointment as Justice Minister, since the appointment of a woman to that position is an historical event and should be one that all women wish to celebrate. However, I believe that the Prime Minister's decision to appoint a woman to the Justice portfolio was neither made in a spirit of commitment to women's equality nor in recognition of the potential contribution that a woman incumbent could make to all women in Canada. Rather, I believe that your appointment is a thinly veiled attempt to counter all the bad press that the federal government has received over its recent decision to cut federal funding to women's programs across Canada.
Further, I believe that your appointment was intended to cloud the fact that the proposed abortion bill will recriminalize abortion. I believe the Prime Minister considered your B.C. reputation as a supporter of a woman's right to reproductive choice and decided that he could rely on that reputation to reassure Canadian women that the hon. Minister would be fair in her representation of women on this issue. I believe the Canadian women are not that easily fooled-
and it gives the minister's name.
Those same women who applauded your position on choice are now wondering why you have turned away from them to endorse proposed legislation to recriminalize abortion. I know why. It is politically expedient for you to abandon the wishes of the majority of Canadian women on this subject at this time. That is nothing for us to celebrate.
The majority of Canadians support a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a child. I demand that you, hon. Minister, act on behalf of the majority of Canadians in opposing the proposed abortion bill. I must advise you that if you do not, I will do everything within my power to ensure that Canadian women know that you favour political expediency over the rights of women, and I will be encouraging them to ensure that you are not re-elected to the House of Commons.
Yours truly,
Linda Tosac
This past year, January to December 1989, provided a long list of rude awakenings for Canadian women, women who thought we had won the right to make our own reproductive decisions. Women in Ontario were shocked when the Supreme Court of Ontario judge granted Barbara Dodd's former boyfriend an injunction preventing her from having an abortion. The decision followed a hearing at which neither Dodd nor her lawyer were present.
Women in Quebec were shocked when Chantal Daigle's former lover persuaded a Superior Court judge

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
to order the young woman to cany her pregnancy to term. The province's highest court upheld the ruling.
Women in Nova Scotia watched helplessly as Premier John Buchanan's government passed a law to prevent Dr. Henry Morgentaler from operating a Halifax clinic that was to facilitate safe, timely abortions in the underserved Atlantic provinces.
Women throughout the country looked on with amazement and shock as this government introduced a new criminal abortion law that could lead to the imprisonment of both women and their doctors for abortions performed for reasons other than health.
All this in spite of the fact that in 1988 the Supreme Court ruled and came down with a decision that struck down Canada's abortion laws because they forced women seeking abortions to meet a criterion that is unrelated to their own priorities and aspirations.
Now we are in 1990, and now we have listened through this long week to member of parliament after member of parliament get up and, in the most sanctimonious terms, vilify the women of this country.
Part of the argument that was put forward was an argument for women to carry children to term and for the government, I assume, or society as a whole, to provide to those women the kinds of support that are necessary for them either to bear the children and keep them or, as some might suggest, to bear them for another, which is an option I am sure those who have suggested it have not thought about in terms of the person who is doing the bearing.
Having said that, in the last 18 months since this parliament began I have not seen one shred of evidence from the government to show that there is any intention on the part of the same government that brings forward such regressive, cruel legislation-not one shred of evidence that that government in fact plans to provide the support necessary for women to be able to bear these children and raise these children with the support of the community.
In fact, it is important for us to note that the number of working families in this country has steadily increased between 1973 and 1986, and in fact is up by 19 percent. There is a disproportionate number of working-poor families residing in western Canada. Often these include families with two incomes. Roughly 60 percent of working-poor families consists of couples with dependent children.
Has the government provided any kind of assistance to these families? No. The government has put a cap on CAP in western provinces. The government has clawed back child allowance. The government has failed to deliver on the child care that was promised and, to top it all off, the government is throwing in a 7 percent goods and services tax. This lack of support is totally unrealistic.
In 1966, a minimum-wage worker who supports a family could earn 46 percent of the poverty line income. Those are 1986 figures, Mr. Speaker. The minimum wage has not increased in this Parliament since 1986. Even if both spouses were fully employed at the minimum wage, they could only earn 92 percent of the poverty line with both of them working. I do not know if this government expects that they should run out and steal the other 8 percent. I do not know how this government plans that they should find the 7 percent to pay the goods and services tax, but I do know that this kind of policy is not going to help those mothers and fathers face poverty and deal with additional children if in fact their choice were one that is abortion.
There is a failure by this government to set an example for the rest of Canada about how it will provide this wonderful support that it keeps saying we as a community must provide. It is easy to get up in this House and say that we as a community must provide support to the women of Canada.
I will tell you something: if you start looking at the statutes that have come into this House to be debated in this House about supporting women, not one of them will help a woman who is faced with these kinds of choices.
I could go into detail on the legislation, but I do not intend to because I think it has been amply described by my colleagues from the New Democratic Party.
This is a sad week for women in Canada, and it is going to be a sadder week next week when women return to the life of a chattel, being subject to male analysis of the decisions we make and to being threatened with jail if those decisions are the wrong ones in the view of those men. In fact, the minister, as the hon. member for Victoria says, used as her paramountcy a decision from the last century. There are generations of women who have been born since the last century who remember, and who will continue to remember, their sisters, their
May 24, 1990

neighbours, their mothers, their friends, without the right to have a legal safe abortion, who helped each other in desperation, knowing they were breaking the law, watching some die or suffer horribly, but willing to make that sacrifice because there was no alternative.
Women will continue to have abortions in this country. The ante will go up tremendously if this bill passes. I am finding it very difficult tonight, as I said at the beginning, to make a speech that gives the dignity to this House that it deserves. I am absolutely devastated at the thought that in 1990, 50 years after we women became persons, we are faced with the fait accompli of Bill C-43, the recriminalization of abortion.
The hon. member for Victoria drew a parallel between the constitutional crisis Canada faces and this bill. I agree with him totally, not only does this bill parallel the constitutional crisis, this bill is the Meech Lake Accord of women in Canada.
I condemn this bill for its lack of fairness, for its lack of equity, for its lack of justice. I condemn it on behalf of a great number of women in Canada.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for her kind words. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for New Westminster-Burnaby for her fight on this bill. It has been terrific. I am proud to be sitting next to her in this House and to be associated with her in this battle.
As I was listening to her and to the member for Mission-Coquitlam I noted a sadness, particularly among women, in this debate and in the vote. It is a sadness with which I empathize. It is not a pleasant thing to see the society in which you live a lesser place than you would like it to be. I think that is the perception of what is happening.
I happened, for quite different reasons, to go into the reading room tonight and I found a book called The Long Distance Runner, the autobiography of Michael Harrington. Michael Harrington is an American socialist. He told a joke that William Buckley told on him in introducing him. He said: "That is like being a skyscraper in Desmoines".
Government Orders
He tells the story in this book of his life as a democratic socialist in the United States. He describes it as the long distance run. Part of it is the evolution of his thinking as the years went along, part of it is an account of the joy of accomplishment and the despair at the losses and the difficult times. He concludes, as it happened just before he died recently of cancer, to say that he would not have traded his life for any other, that the struggle for social justice is important and worth it. Whatever the short-term loss tonight, it is a fight that must go on.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Victoria for what he has just put before the House. I think it probably reflects the sentiments of many Canadian women. Many of the women who have spoken in this House believed, I think, that we were part of the last generation of women who would have to face unwanted pregnancy with no alternatives but to break the law. In fact, we find ourselves part of a generation again facing those alternatives. That is the legacy we have to give to our daughters.
I too want to draw a little bit of a comparison. There was a black and white film put out years ago. It is still around in some places. It was put out by the International Ladies Garment Workers and is about the organizing drives in New York at the turn of the century. There is a song which closes the film. The chorus in the song says: "Every generation has to win it again". I guess that is what we are facing here.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly at the third reading stage of Bill C-43 and express my reservations about the legislation tabled by this government.
Jesus Christ said something I think is very apt in this case; "Forgive them, for they know not what they do". I think these words are a very good description of this government, which has tabled a bill that does not in any way deal with the problem facing our modem society.
In fact, neither pro-life nor pro-choice supporters can identify with this bill. Both groups are disappointed by this legislation. I fail to see why the government refused to pass legislation similar to that which exists in most of the world's industrialized countries. I am referring to legislation that clearly specifies that in the early stages of pregnancy, it is exclusively up to the woman to decide whether or not she will keep her child. In most modem

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
countries, the legislation provides that this decision may be made by the mother without any intervention by the State, and in a totally decriminalized context.
In most of these countries-I am thinking of France in particular-there is a provision that in the second quarter, the decision is a matter between the mother and a physician. In other words, the decision must be medically approved if the abortion, if that is what the mother wants, is to take place.
In the last three months of pregnancy, most industrialized countries provide that to have an abortion is a criminal act, except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger.
I think the legislation before the House today might, in the opinion of those who support the pro-life movement, open the door far too wide to abuse. If we read the wording of the bill very carefully, it is indeed a possibility. Conversely, and this is where the situation gets rather confused, we have had both on second reading and at the report stage of this bill and now on third reading, parliamentarians who said that in fact, the bill was far too restrictive and that in the final instance, the whole bill should not be subject to the Criminal Code.
I think the amendment proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby (Ms. Black), who suggested repealing sections 287 and 288 of the Criminal Code, had some merit. I did not vote in favour of the amendment because personally, I think the decision, at least in the early stages of pregnancy, should be entirely up to the mother and certainly not subject to the Criminal Code. Personally, I think that in the final stages of pregnancy, abortion would constitute a crime, just as a mother who cuts her child's throat in the days and weeks following its birth would be committing a crime. If we apply criminal sanctions to the mother who commits such an act in the weeks following birth, I don't see how we could not do so when an abortion is done in the weeks preceding birth. There would otherwise be a double standard.
I think it is unfortunate that the bill ignores the various stages of pregnancy. The medical profession has very clearly addressed the whole question of deciding when life really begins. Is it at the time of conception, during the first few weeks, or during the first few months? I suggest that this still has not been resolved at
the medical level. But it seems to me that after a number of weeks, there is undoubtedly a living being in its mother's womb and to carry out an abortion at that time could be accepted by society only under very stringent conditions and on the basis of a clear decision of the medical profession.
I can say this with the utmost conviction because my father was a general practictioner who probably delivered a few thousand babies in his lifetime, operating for many years in such rural areas as the Lower St. Lawrence, near Riviere-du-Loup, Kamouraska, Saint-Pascal, but especially in Kamouraska, and later on in Charlesbourg, a suburd of Quebec City. He is no longer here to discuss with me and tell me how I should have voted on this bill. I am quite sure that he did not cany out many abortions. And if he did I am sure it was clearly to save the mother's life.
As several other Parliamentarians, I took it upon myself to seek opinions. This is a bill on which hon. members may vote freely, irrespective of their party affiliation or party line, according their conscience. I have been able to realize to what extent Canadians are divided on this issue, for having sought the opinion of my own children-I have two daughters and two sons-I know what they think, and I can tell you that if one of my sons is pro-life, the other is pro-choice, and that if one of my daughters is pro-life, the other is pro-choice. They are, like the rest of the Canadian people, deeply divided on this issue. Unfortunately, the bill we have before us does not help in any way. I hope that the bill will pass on third reading. I think it will. We just have to refer to the final votes on the report stage and see what happened then to conclude that Bill C-43 will very likely pass on third reading.
I hope that this law will not have as much trouble in the courts as the previous law because in reality, it is no longer possible, I think, to successfully prosecute a doctor who performs an abortion. The experience of the criminal courts in recent years clearly shows that when a physician is taken to court, a trial with judge and jury is automatically requested. In today's modem society, it is impossible to bring together 12 jurors who are unanimous on this question. That is why I find it rather unfortunate that the government decided to maintain this as a criminal matter. I am convinced that when it comes to trial in court, this question, again, will never be settled. I do not see how we can find 12 jurors who will
May 24, 1990

unanimously convict a physician for performing an abortion.
I also find it regrettable that so much emphasis is put on the physician's responsibility. It seems to me that doctors practise their profession in conditions that are often very difficult in our modern society. It is not the doctor's duty to pass a legal, much less a religious, judgement. Therefore putting so much emphasis in the bill on the physician's responsibility seems to me to be fundamentally wrong. I am quite disappointed to see how determined the government is to pass its bill in its present form.
Personally, I will vote against this bill on third reading because I think that it does not meet the needs of the day.
For sure, the Canadian government cannot legislate in this area without using the Criminal Code, since it is possibly the only law that allows it to legislate.
But it seems to me that this issue, which I think ought to be decriminalized, should be strictly regulated by provincial and medical authorities in each Canadian province. Had we been able to get the agreement of the ten provinces to put the matter of abortion under civil law to allow abortion during the first weeks of pregnancy, as I said earlier, I suggest we might have had a piece of legislation which would have been much fairer and much more serene, but which could have provided stricter sanctions for abortion in the latter phase of pregnancy.
I voted for an amendment introduced by the member from Fraser Valler East (Mr. Belsher). His amendment had to do with the physician who concludes that without abortion the life or health of the mother might be seriously threatened. I thought that adding the word "seriously" would in a way restrict the open-door approach to abortion on demand which seems to be a characteristic of this bill. I am very disappointed that the government did not see fit to accept this amendment from one of its own backbenchers.
I vividly remember the words of Mgr. Lebel, president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, who expressed strong disappointment when he learned that the parliamentary committee on abortion did not accept
Government Orders
any of the amendments to Bill C-43. For that reason, he thought, the bill itself should have been scrapped.
I for one believe that, at the very least, the amendment of the member for Fraser Valley East should have been adopted. I suggest we will end up with a faulty piece of legislation which will fail to meet the requirements of our modern society. And I am afraid-I hope I am wrong-that again the Supreme Court will be called upon to rule on the contents of the legislation, and perhaps a few years down the road we will have to get back to Parliament to re-open the debate on the abortion legislation.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member from the Liberal side very carefully and I must say that I ended up somewhat confused about just exactly what his position is on this issue and on the bill.
He kept returning to the issue of late abortions. He said several times that late abortions are a crime. I wonder if he is aware that 89 per cent of the abortions that are performed in this country take place before the twelfth week. Late abortions very seldom happen. When they do happen, it is for catastrophic reasons.
I have a friend who underwent a late abortion last year. She was five months pregnant. She was pregnant with her third child and it was very much a wanted child. She had no option but to go through with this abortion. It was not her choice. It was not what she wanted to do, but to save her own health, and for the sake of the two children she already had, she had to go through this.
When you talk about making late abortions a crime, this is the kind of situation you are talking about. Does the hon. member suggest that this woman, after going through medical consultation, should have gone through some other kind of procedure, some other kind of panel, some other kind of medical decision? The medical decision had been made. I really find it difficult to understand what he would want to see put into place.
The other thing that left me somewhat confused was that he talked about wanting abortion to be decriminalized but said, on the other hand, that society wanted regulations in place. Well, the fact of the matter is there are already regulations in place. Women are self-regulating about this issue, for one thing. It is not an issue that women take lightly. It is an issue that women

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
straggle with incredibly. There are regulations in place by the Canadian Medical Association as well which deal with all of the issues the member was speaking of.
Just exactly what does he mean about crimes in the later stages? What does he means about regulations when we already have regulations?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, before answering the hon. member's question, I want to say to him that, up until the third reading stage, this debate on Bill C-43 had been held in a non-partisan way with respect for the personal views and convictions of every member of this House.
I deeply regret that the New Democratic Party, at the third reading stage of this bill, has decided to turn it into a partisan issue by increasing their interventions, questioning speeches made in this House by members of other parties and attempting to ask questions to their own members. They want to turn this debate into the NDP mutual admiration society, which I find totally unacceptable in this context. From the beginning we have seen a non-partisan debate where all members can express their own personal views and convictions dictated by their conscience.
I say to the hon. member that I am quite familiar with the position she has expressed and that I respect her views. I would like the NDP members to limit themselves to their own speeches and let other members, be they Conservatives or Liberals, freely express their opinions in this debate where partisanship has no place.
I explained a while ago-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: Order! The hon. member on a point of order.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not going to say what I think about the remarks that have just been made. I am going to ask you to clarify something. Under the rales of this House, under questions and comments members have a right to question any other member, regardless of which party they are from. Would you please clarify that, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: I do not think that what has been said by the hon. member is a point of order. The hon. member for Papineau-Saint Michel was expressing an opinion, which all other members of the House may not share. However, the member may come back to that topic, if she wants, for the rest of the period of question and comments.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, since I have an opportunity to comment further on my position on this bill, I would like to add that I am sorry the government did not accept an amendment that was proposed by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, which provided that an abortion should be induced only by a medical practitioner. He suggested removing the words "or under the direction of" to make it clear that an abortion should only be induced in very special circumstances and only by a medical practitioner, not by other persons who do not have the ability to assess properly the consequences that an abortion might have from the health point of view. I think the purpose of this amendment was to ensure that everything is done under the best possible conditions by the persons best qualified to perform a medical act that I feel should only be done in very special circumstances. I think it is also unfortunate that the government did not accept an amendment I thought was entirely appropriate in the circumstances.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, since it is not possible to have clarification of the ruling, I would like to express my opinion.
Because a group of people representing a particular political party are attracted to that party because of its clearly articulated policies, I feel we should be able to get up in this House and articulate that position very comfortably. These members feel so strongly about the issues that they are at least prepared to stay and ask questions of other speakers or make comments on those questions. The rales of this House allow any member to question any other member regardless of whether they
May 24, 1990

are in the same party or what their views are. I understand this to be an entrenched right in this House.
I would like to say that I take very grave exception to the position of the hon. member who spoke just before my intervention. I would very strongly ask him to consider not making this a partisan issue, something he is accusing others of doing.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and assume she is not trying to make a partisan gesture. It certainly is not my intention. I think I expressed, as I said from the outset, my own personal position. I hope that all other parliamentarians who will speak in this debate will do the same. I have noticed that during the last few hours of this debate, there has been a certain emphasis, if I may use this term, by certain members in a certain comer of the House of Commons, and if that is not a partisan gesture, so much the better!
In concluding, I wish to say that I do not think Bill C-43 is the kind of bill I would have liked to see tabled by this government, and in the circumstances, when time comes to vote on third reading, I will vote against this bill.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against Bill C-43, the act respecting abortion, on this third reading. There are so many issues in this, and some of them have been very well dealt with, such as the ambiguity of the bill or the question of the legal jeopardy and risk to a doctor as well as to a woman, and so on .1 do not intend to go into those aspects. This is something I have been concerned with personally in the sense that I have seen it primarily not as a legal issue but as a moral issue.
My wife and the rest of my family and I have discussed this frequently over the years. My wife and I have seven children and a number of grandchildren, and we are glad of every one of them. My wife and I have never tried to prevent the birth of one of our children. We not only reverence life, but we enjoy and value it. But we came to the conclusion some years ago that we do not have the right as citizens to use the force of the law to prevent a
Government Orders
woman from seeking an abortion from a qualified medical practitioner.
Furthermore, most of the mail and comments that I have received from my constituents are not concerned with the confusing aspects of Bill C-43. They are concerned with yes or no; abortion or no abortion. Some of them may qualify it by talking about the first or second or third trimester or about certain circumstances, but basically they are concerned either that abortion should be again made a criminal offence under our law or that it should not be. Therefore, I want to deal with what I consider the underlying moral issue, on which it is possible to take the position that abortion ought not to happen and yet, at the same time and consistently, to take the position that we do not have the moral means to use force or terror against a woman or a doctor who differs with us in that judgment.
I am encouraged by a large part of the brief that the United Church of Canada presented on this subject earlier this year. I may not agree with absolutely every detail of it, but it is one of the best statements I have found of the moral and religious issues at stake in this matter.
In their brief, at the beginning, they make three general points. One is: "We urge the Government of Canada not to use the provisions in the Criminal Code to regulate abortion". That in one sense completely covers the subject of this bill. They go on, and I wish to refer in a minute to their reasons for that.
They also say that they want the Government of Canada "to enact and enforce penalties for people who perform or attempt to perform abortions without the required medical qualifications or who perform or attempt to perform abortions in places other than those approved for that purpose". I am quite perplexed by that recommendation, that urging, because it seems to me that, in part, it is redundant, as we already have a law forbidding a person to do a medical service who is not qualified and the medical profession has its own internal code and disciplinary system to the same effect. So that is taken care of, and even though they seem to place it outside the Criminal Code, I do not understand how the United Church would plan to have the government cany this out. I do not know under what kind of jurisdiction they expect the government to do it. At any rate, it seems to me it is cancelled out by the first of their recommendations.

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
Their third recommendation, third urging, is that the government use shared funding under the Canada Health Act "to require all provincial governments to provide adequate contraceptive education and services to effectively reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies and to provide early access to diagnosis and, if necessary, termination of pregnancy so that any such abortion could be performed as early as possible". With the exception of the middle clause, which I find hard to understand, I think their position is clear and sound.
I want to refer to some of the theological and ethical principles that the General Council of the United Church states in support of that position, because that is the official position by the General Council of the United Church. They go on to say:
The United Church of Canada affirms: the sanctity of human life, born and unborn. That life is much more than physical existence.
They go on to say that the taking of human life is evil. Then they make a point that I think should be made more often than it is in this debate.
Our concern must not be limited to a concern for the unborn but it must also include a concern for the quality of life as a whole.
In this debate and in previous debates on this subject, I have said how disgraceful it is sometimes that a body such as a city council or the parliament seems to be concerned with children before they are born and not afterwards. It seems to make a mockery of everything they say.
The United Church goes on:
Life in this imperfect world often places us in complex circumstances of moral dilemma and ambiguity where values ultimate in themselves seem at times to be in conflict with other values and rights.
We are called as a people of God to take responsibility for our lives and the world in which we live. This may involve making grave decisions relating even to life itself.
Some of us who decided years ago to join the Canadian Armed Forces were certainly deciding to try to take lives, since that is what has to be done in war. We were urged to do that by practically all the religious leaders of Canada. In this point, the United Church is in line with the rest. Whether war is justified or not, they are making
the general point that there are times when we have to make very grave decisions relating even to life itself.
They go on to say:
A child has a right to be wanted, so that it may have some assurance of this essential element in human development. Bringing unwanted children into the world is irresponsible.
Then they come to the point at which so many members of this House seem to divide.
Family planning, including vasectomy and tubal ligation, is a Christian duty. Our Canadian society has to make every effort to ensure that contraception is the only completely acceptable form of birth control-. The aim of all education, research and social pressure must be always to reduce the incidence of abortion and to promote effective contraception.
During my life, particularly during my married life and my life as an active member of the church, at present the Anglican Church, I have not been able to understand why some people teach that contraception is wrong. Some people seem to place contraception almost on a level with abortion in their scale of evil. I cannot for the life of me understand it because I believe it is true that the restriction or hindrance of contraception or a discouragement of contraception has in fact been responsible in part for many abortions.
The United Church goes on to says:
To anticipate the use of abortion as a form of birth control and therefore neglect to practise contraception is medically and morally deplorable and socially expensive and such intentional use of abortion by individuals or governments is morally wrong.
The United Church does not say that abortion is good. It does no say that abortion is neutral, neither good nor evil. It says it is wrong, but it does not take an absolutist view of that. It goes on:
We affirm the inherent value of human life, both as immature in the foetus-
Mr. Speaker, I think that is a broadly acceptable description of something which is disputed back and forth as to when a human person begins. The United Church regards the foetus as immature human life. It goes on to say:
- and as expressed in the life of the mother and related persons. The foetus is a unique though immature form of human life and, as such, has inherent value. Christians should witness to that value by stressing that abortion is always a moral issue and can only be accepted as the lesser of two evils and should be the most responsible alternative available in each particular situation.
May 24, 1990

They conclude this paragraph by saying:
Therefore abortion is acceptable only in certain medical, social and
economic situations.
I believe that is a very careful, responsible statement by Christian people of the situation in which we find ourselves in this country regarding abortion. They go on from there to make four more points. They say:
Based on these fundamental values, the major concerns of the
church have been:
(1)	To reduce the incidence of abortion through effective contraception. This requires adequate funding for education and services provided by local and provincial health authorities.
(2)	To establish responsible choice for women with problematic pregnancies up to the approach of fetal viability with great stress on enabling any elective abortion to be as early as possible.
(3)	To ensure equality of access to abortion services for women across Canada, that is, to end the injustice to poorer and rural women and those from particular provinces.
(4)	To ensure that counselling is available for those considering abortions.
I am well aware that part of their recommendation is outside the purview of this particular bill we are dealing with, but I want to emphasize a point they are making because it shows that this bill is not only harmful but also unnecessary. If the bill were a little bit harmful but did a lot of good, we might have to accept it. When it does a lot of harm and is quite unnecessary, we should reject it.
What the United Church says is that the Canada Health Act should be used to pressure the provinces to make adequate provision for reproductive education and services according to its standards of comprehensiveness and availability. The federal government should use the threat of withholding health grants if provinces are not ensuring education in contraception and adequate access to early diagnosis and abortion services if necessary. Then they go on to make the point that:
Re-criminalization violates women's responsible choice.
The United Church criticized the previous abortion law as "unjust in principle and unworkable in practice". I think they made a very powerful point in this matter.
I wish there was time to also go into the very good brief of the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada. I can
Government Orders
touch on only a couple of their points. They deal with the means of preventing unwanted pregnancies. I find it shocking that this government, which has tried twice now to criminalize abortion, has also reduced the funding for Planned Parenthood of Canada.
Planned Parenthood says:
Meanwhile, unintended pregnancy among women, all pregnancy in adolescent women, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and increasing fertility problems continue to affect millions of Canadians and have serious social, health, and economic consequences for us all.
Farther down they say:
The social, economic, and health consequences of the lack of fertility control have a major impact on the lives of individual women and on the status of women in general.
They are concerned with trying to prevent the problem that this government undertakes quite falsely and incompetently to cure on this law on abortion. The Planned Parenthood Association continues:
In spite of the serious and costly consequences of unintended pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases,-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: I would ask the hon. member to conclude, please.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to conclude with the final paragraph of the statement of the United Church of Canada:
These ways of witnessing and safeguarding the value of developing life are less ambiguous and more effective:
Than this law:
-for example, responsible and widely available contraception, good prenatal care and adequate family income. As a society, we have a long way to go in terms of improving mother and child welfare, prenatal and postnatal, and all such policies affirm the value of life more powerfully than a criminal law.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: Questions or comments. The hon. member for New Westminster- Burnaby.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent in the House tonight for the following motion, that is, that the order for third reading of Bill C-43 be discharged and the bill be withdrawn.

May 24, 1990
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: The hon. member seeks unanimous consent to present this motion. Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Plourde:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: Since the hon. member does not have the unanimous consent of the House, the motion is rejected.
Motion negatived.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the only voices we heard were agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: I clearly heard someone also who did not agree to that presentation. On debate.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the abortion debate is one that I welcome.
I welcome this debate because it is an opportunity to focus attention not just on life, but on our whole attitude toward caring and sharing, attitudes New Democrats and their predecessors hold and have held very dear. It is a matter of understanding life, with all its important parts, and how we as individuals within a diversified society can best serve each other, not just in times of need but in everyday life when positive interaction prevents problems and stimulates development.
I state outright my support for life, life within the womb and later as the child grows to adulthood, aging, I would hope gracefully toward a natural death. In so doing, I express my understanding of our current society where children and adults die in poverty, without friends, without family and often without dignity.
Words are important. Definitions shape perceptions, and we have to be careful in our understanding of these definitions. We are all pro-life, and to suggest otherwise is nonsense. There is no other way to describe someone who bears concern and consideration for another's life, opportunity and future.
Some things enter into all this. The well-known Canadian Laurier Lapierre said it well not long ago, speaking at a convention that I attended in Saskatoon. The former television personality said that there is great
support among Canadians for the sanctity of life. Then he added: "until after birth".
The North American society we have created through economic decisions taken by governments is responsible for thousands of deaths every year.
There are suicides. The farmer about to lose the land that he inherited from his father feels that he has failed. The worker laid off for the third time in 10 years feels he can no longer serve his impoverished family. The student whose strife-tom home life is affecting his grades and social interaction with others feels he has no future worth living. This is a society in which crucial individual life and death decisions are based on one's interpretation of one's own future. Desperate decisions to take one's own life or the life of one yet to be bom are not taken lightly.
These are decisions reached in reaction to situations often created by others. They are decisions reached from deep within their souls, personal, private and often illogical. They are decisions not easily understood by you or me.
There are more than 60,000 abortions every year. We have to ask: Why? Are these the acts of indecisive women, uncaring women destined for hell? I think not, Mr. Speaker. A decision to take any life is one reached with much suffering, regret and guilt. Very often if there were alternatives, there would not be a decision to have that abortion. Community and local church support in this regard is very important.
As parliamentarians and members of this society, our goal is to reduce the number of abortions in Canada. It is a most admirable goal, one that I believe to be of utmost importance. However, if our society is going to achieve that goal or other goals such as the reduction in the number of suicides, the number of child or wife abuse situations or the number of crimes committed by juveniles, we are going to have to correct the social and economic problems that are the root cause of each. It is an admirable challenge, one we have to adopt as our own.
What all these problems have in common is that no law in and of itself will stop them. Young men and women will continue to commit suicide. Husbands will continue to beat their wives. Children will continue to commit crimes against person and property. People will continue to consider abortion as an alternative for their own futures regardless of well-placed words from wellmeaning individuals, speeches from politicians and laws controlling their lives, until such time as society provides
May 24, 1990

an alternative that they may consider in their personal decision-making process.
A woman who wants an abortion, and we must believe there are people who want abortions for many different reasons, and who has the means to obtain one will find the way to have that abortion regardless of the law. That was proved prior to the passing of Canada's first abortion law in 1967.
The true test of our society and our law-makers is our tolerance of the different needs and acts of individuals who make up our society. Governments and individuals have a responsibility to promote positive decision-making, to create a society which stimulates and encourages the joy of childbirth and child rearing. The protection of the child and the protection of the family is as important to the future of our society as is the protection of the rights of those who are yet to be bom.
There is a certain amount of the current debate which refuses to acknowledge the existence of factors beyond the individual control and therefore allows little room for tolerance of any kind. On an issue of this importance, society must accept that there is no specific or definitive answer to the question of what is right and what is wrong.
The answer lies, rather, in a series of programs aimed at improving the conditions of the poor, the unfortunate, and the confused. The aim is to prevent abortions from taking place. We will not stop abortions by creating new criminals. We will, however, stop abortions by creating a society which not only wants children but also offers those children through their families and our communities a future full of hope, optimism, and joy.
Canada, you may know, Mr. Speaker, has no children's policy. No government action has ever been taken on the recommendations of the health and welfare committee of this House in 1981. The committee's recommendations were based on the United Nations Commission during the International Year of the Child and called for the establishment of a children's ministry, a children's bureau. That committee, supported by the New Democratic Party's social issues critic, called for the develop-
Govemment Orders
ment and implementation of a comprehensive national family policy. It has never been done.
The purpose of the ministry and the policy would be to ensure that all Canada's children in whatever region they live have equal opportunities to develop as healthy, self-reliant, caring human beings.
The family as a basic human, working unit, has undergone major changes in the past decade. The extended family off the Indian reserves in this country is almost non-existent. Divorces are common. Children are being raised by single parents and teenage pregnancies are on the rise.
Almost every decision of government during this past decade has encouraged the trend toward a smaller and less caring family. It is encouraged by a society driven by the market-oriented economy. A government which cares only for those able to help themselves is a government which encourages abortion, crime, and death.
Inflation, unemployment, rising personal taxes, the increased cost of goods, have all taken their toll on people across this country. There is little hope among young people, a situation which is directly related to a less-motivated work force and a higher incidence of poverty and crime. Unemployment and job insecurity for parents have contributed to increased incidents of child abuse and wife battering.
There is a denial of certain human rights, rights which should be considered inherent in citizenship, a denial which helps to maintain the poor situation, the right to a decent standard of living, the right to free, efficient, and accessible health care, the right to a good education and a right to opportunities which will develop fully one's potential and aspirations. These are rights which only New Democrats have said in this House are a responsibility and priority of a government at the will of the people.
How does this way of thinking jibe with what has been happening in Canada during the past few years? Essentially, it flies in the face of government practice which has been to erode the place of the family and erode family benefits or basic rights of families from coast to coast.
Take, for example, the partial de-indexing of the family allowance and the change in the threshold rate, the rate at which benefits begin to be taxed back, from $26,800 to $23,500, a position taken in 1986. This effec-

May 24, 1990
Government Orders
tively meant that many families below the official poverty line had their benefits cut. The net loss to the family benefit program by 1991 because of these two cuts will be $1.5 billion per year. These are cuts to programs that essentially aided children.
The NDP sees the family allowance as the most effective way to deliver benefits to families, particularly those at the poverty line. The party is strongly advocating a significant increase in the family allowance and restoration of full indexation with a raised threshold level.
In addition, the party continues to call for a 20 per cent increase in the refundable child tax credit, also to be fully indexed.
New Democrats recognize the right of men and women to continue being an effective parent or worker with equal opportunity and employment. A decline in the support to young families and a desire and need by women with children to pursue work outside the home has steadily increased the need for quality child care. A system of universally accessible, affordable, high-quality, licensed child care and parent support policies are prerequisites. If mothers are unable to find affordable, quality child care, most will be forced to accept only temporary, part-time, poorly-paid work or stay at home or, worst of all, accept inadequate child care.
The tax reform package outlined by the government is another example of current government policies being grossly unfair to families, particularly those in the low and middle-income brackets.
Under the new rules we find that profitable corporations will continue to pay no income tax. Wealthy individuals will continue to see their taxes go down from what they were paying in 1984 when the Conservatives were elected.
Taxes for the average family are increasing faster than their incomes. Since 1984, sales tax hikes have generated almost 60 per cent of all new government revenues. That means an additional $600 per year from the average family.
What is most depressing about that is that a Statistics Canada report indicates that 56 per cent of all low-income Canadians are women, women who are either
elderly or are single parents struggling to raise a child on their own.
Families with small children and the elderly are most susceptible to illness. This government at the federal level succeeded in passing legislation providing for lengthy patent protection to American drug companies, the end result being that the cost of prescription drugs in this country has almost tripled.
In the province of Saskatchewan the Conservative government made it more difficult to obtain those drugs because of a ridiculous refund scheme for prescription drug costs. Neither federal nor provincial government has considered the implications of their actions on a young family or the elderly.
We are often told that children are this nation's most precious resource. We often talk in this Chamber about protection afforded to other resources such as forestry, mining and fish stocks. Yet when it comes to that precious resource of children what do we say and what do we do?
Mr. Speaker, let me just give you some statistics for the province of Saskatchewan. One out of every six Saskatchewan families is poor. Newfoundland is the only province in Canada with a higher rate.
In 1986, 42,600 Saskatchewan families were officially living in poverty, up from 36,900 in 1981. That is a 15.3 per cent increase. Add to this nearly 9,000 on-reserve Indian families who are not counted in the official surveys. Indian families in Saskatchewan, and I know across the country, are among the poorest of the poor.
One in every four Saskatchewan families with children under 16 earned less than $20,000 per year in 1986. In Saskatchewan, 64,560 children, or one child in every four, lives in poverty. In all of Canada one child in every six is growing up poor.
Between 1980 and 1986 the number of poor children in Saskatchewan increased by 12.8 per cent, even though the total number of children in the province declined by almost 4 per cent.
Nearly 70 per cent of Saskatchewan poor families live in single parent families headed by women.
Children make up 40 per cent of people receiving social assistance. The number of Saskatchewan children under 16 in families on welfare jumped by more than 50 per cent from 1981 to 1986. Since 1986 the social services
May 24, 1990

department in Saskatchewan no longer publishes this data. Children receiving benefits from the Indian affairs department are not included.
Public begging and private charity have been the major response of the Saskatchewan government to child hunger and family poverty in the province. Food bank use in Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert has jumped by 50 per cent in two years.
However, the number of people receiving government social assistance in those three cities has fallen by almost 10 per cent in that same period of time. Many people are simply being cut off welfare or denied eligibility and forced into the streets.
Obviously, for too many families in our province, their home situation is characterized by poverty, hunger and profound stress. The numbers indicate that Saskatchewan, as I mentioned, has the second highest level of family poverty in Canada, second only to Newfoundland. Across Canada the poverty rate for children has reached an astonishing 17 per cent-an intolerable situation.
I suspect the situation will only get worse. Current government programs and proposals are taking more away from the poor and middle-income Canadians, in turn creating more poverty, more malnourished and less cared for children.
Of course the whole process is doubly difficult on those living in northern and remote areas where this government has just eliminated or is proposing to eliminate existing tax benefits that will increase tax payable from Canadians in northern Canada by almost 100 per cent.
You are motioning that I am almost out of time, Mr. Speaker.
Our goal is to reduce or eliminate the need for abortion, to stop the wanton destruction of life yet to be, but legislative force will not stop abortion.
As a colleague of mine said recently: "You cannot legislate against fear and desperation. Only sanity and common sense will produce the desired results".
When we create a society which protects families, whether it is the extended families that so many of our ancestors preferred, two parent families which many of
Government Orders
us enjoy, or the single parent family which is becoming more prevalent throughout our country, then we protect the family from poverty, violence and hunger, then we protect the future of the countless yet unborn children.
Here in Canada we need a government willing to take its leadership role seriously. We need a government which is prepared to take a stand toward creating that caring society that is built on a platform of co-operation and hope. We do not need a government like we have witnessed that has brought in this bill today.
I am voting against this bill as I did at second reading because our responsibility is to the future. It is to the common good of all. If we are to prevent abortions, we have to care for the society we are developing for our children to grow up in.
The bill before us is an easy way out. I am not looking for the easy way out. I have seen what the easy way out does. The pictures that we have seen on our television screens of children in Romania who have been born into families that did not want them and ushered away into institutions and homes where they have been forced to live naked and alone is something that I do not believe we can allow to happen in Canada. Those images on the television screen haunt me daily.
Voting against this bill is step number one. The next step is the difficult step. The next step is the one that we have to take using a government that has the courage to create a society of which we can all be proud.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has referred throughout his speech to the poverty that faces the people of Saskatchewan, particularly women. There has been considerable discussion about poverty in this House around this issue. There has been discussion about federal government policies that in fact deny women the kind of economic and social support they need when it comes to bearing children.
I wonder if my hon. colleague would kindly talk a little about some of the policies that the Government of Saskatchewan has introduced in terms of support for women who are facing poverty and this question covered under Bill C-43. Would he comment on them and, for example, refer to programs such as Saskatchewan's work for welfare program?

May 24, 1990
Government Orders


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who, incidentally, I want to note has been doing a tremendous job here in the House on a bill of rights for children. It is tremendous work that I greatly support. I believe that if the government were listening we would have a real start to correct some of the problems that are affecting our children across Canada and, as she mentions, in Saskatchewan.
The Saskatchewan situation is a doubly horrendous one, not just because there is lack of child care in the urban centres where a lot of families-and I use the word families here to mean two-parent families-are looking for child care where both parents need to work but, more important, in the large rural parts of the province where farm families are being forced to secure second incomes in order to stay on the farm. Second incomes have resulted in a number of different situations, situations where one spouse works the farm and also works off the farm. There are other situations in which both spouses are forced to work off the farm, creating a situation which is dangerous for children.
One of the things that I find absolutely incredible when I read the newspapers concerning some of these things concerns children who are killed on the farm by machinery. When one looks at these things one has a tendency to think that there is carelessness on the farm. But when one examines more closely what is happening, it is that parents are attempting to care for their child because they do not have any child care but get the job done on the farm.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, many people who work on the farm use both spouses, one to drive the combine and one to drive the truck. The children are left close by to watch carefully what has been going on. The next thing you know when the business at hand gets moving, a child is under the wheel of a combine, a tractor or a truck in the field.
It is a horrendous situation that could be corrected if there was full-time accessible child care in the rural areas of our country.
I want to mention in reaction to my colleague's question one other thing. Until recently the Saskatchewan Ombudsman was Dave Tickell, a person who worked constantly on the needs of Saskatchewan children in foster care homes. The Ombudsman who worked
for 10 years in the province of Saskatchewan warned constantly of the abuse and neglect of children who are in the care of the province.
I worked in the newspaper business before I became a member of Parliament and I talked to Saskatchewan Ombudsman, Mr. Tickell on many occasions. He consistently talked about the government's lack of desire to make any changes in the provincial foster care program. He said that the provincial government was ignoring the plight of children in foster homes who were complaining of emotional, physical and sexual abuse. He said that the policy of the provincial government offers foster children less protection from physical harm than that offered to children in day care centres, to young offenders in the care of the province, or even to the adult inmates of the provincial correctional centre.
Obviously, children in the province of Saskatchewan, in the eyes of the provincial government, are not and were not a priority for that government. Obviously, if we are going to take life seriously at at any level, we have to ensure that their care is ensured from day one. The provincial government of Saskatchewan had ignored that throughout its recent term of office.
I do not know if that completely answers my colleague's question, but I thank her for putting it. It allows me to expand a little further on what I had to say earlier. I very much appreciate the question she put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: On questions or comments, the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.


Joy Langan: I would like to thank my colleague for his answers to my questions. From the point of view of some of the comments that were made earlier today about the partisanship of this debate, I would like to ask him if he has thoughts in terms of how this debate has taken place in this House.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Again, I appreciate the question that was put by my hon. colleague. The debate today has been most interesting. Actually, the debate over the course of this entire time has been very interesting. I have found it most unusual in the sense of members rising to talk in a non-partisan way, yet at the same time through their actions being extremely partisan in the way in which all of this comes together.
May 24, 1990

The people in my constituency have often talked to me about New Democrats. They ask: "Why is it that New Democrats want to kill all these unborn babies?" In the same breath, they talk about the Conservatives and the Liberals wanting to save all the unborn in the country. It seems to me from the debate here that the members of both parties opposite have very clear, defined, distinct positions that are easily read. When we look at the Prime Minister's statements when he opened the debate some time ago, when we look at the statement of the Minister of Justice when she opened the debate earlier today, and when we look at the statements of the former leader of the Liberal party in the debate on second reading, we find very clear statements of opinion from the members of all parties.
I will be able to take the Hansard of this debate to my constituency and show throughout the constituency the official positions that have been taken by the members of the opposite parties.
I do not want to have to defend my party's position on every doorstep in my constituency when much of the debate has been along similar lines. I feel very strongly that when the next election rolls around, if this bill is in place, the debate will continue to be as strong and as difficult as it has been through this time.
The people who have been arguing strongly on both sides of this issue are obviously going to continue to speak as loudly and as strongly as they have in the course of this debate. That is something that I believe is not very healthy, not in the interests of Canada as a whole. If we are to get on and build the society that is necessary to achieve equitable goals, fairness for all, decisions that are based on all of the factors and not just a minute few, we have got to have a strong understanding statement from the government.
I do not believe that this bill offers it. I do not believe that this debate here today has provided us with that.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I look around me and it is with great dismay that I think it is important to say that it would appear that in this House there is not a quorum.


André Plourde: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: The hon. member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde) on a point of order.


André Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague talked with her House leader before making the quorum call, but she must know that there was an agreement among the three leaders of the political parties represented in the House forbidding a quorum call.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: The order issued on May 10 nowhere states that an agreement was reached forbidding a quorum call. Therefore, I ask the clerk to count the members.
And the members having been counted:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: Since there is no quorum, ring the bells.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: There is now a quorum.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the debate do now adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: The motion presented does not apply, following the order made May 10 which is dated May 24, 1990. The order for third reading of the said bill is that it be the first order of the day and that the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment until such time as no member rises on debate. Debate.


An hon. member:: There is nobody rising.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: I am satisfied that debate is now concluded. Pursuant to the order made Thursday, May 10, 1990, the putting of the question on the motion for third reading of Bill C-43 is deemed deferred until three o'clock p.m. Thesday, May 29, 1990.

Pursuant to the order made on Thursday, May 10, 1990, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.46 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 25, 1990