1990-05-22

Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun -St. Paul):: Mr. Speaker, this morning is a very momentous and trying occasion for me, worse than a divorce.
For the past several days, Quebeckers have been awaiting a response from the member for Verdun-St. Paul and I feel I must deal in an open, honest and forthright manner with my colleagues from the Conservative Party, with my colleagues in Opposition and, above all, with the House of Commons.
Therefore, I have asked to rise on a question of privilege to read a brief statement which will reveal to all my reasons for embarking on a new course.
For more than five years, I have had the honour of representing the riding of Verdun-St. Paul as a member of this government. It has been a pleasure and a true honour for me to serve my fellow citizens. It was also a great pleasure for me to work with the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney. However, my personal principles and convictions compel me to take a stronger stand and to differ with some of the major issues of the day, notably the Meech Lake Accord.
Henceforth, I intend to participate fully in the debate surrounding this Accord since Quebec's future is involved. I cannot remain silent on this important issue since I would be unable to face my children if they approached me in several years' time and said: "Father, you were there; you said nothing, you did nothing". It is
not by muzzling the members of the governing party that we will find an adequate solution to the problem.
The recently tabled Charest report proposes, in my opinion, other amendments to the Meech Lake Accord. As a Quebecker, I find these amendments unacceptable and I continue to believe and to maintain that the original Accord must be observed and upheld.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Quebec constitutes a distinct society and this has been the case since the early days of confederation. Moreover, I still do not understand why this committee was set up. I contend that we must uphold the agreement as it was originally drafted by the First Ministers at Meech Lake.
Therefore, out of respect for the party that I represent here in the House, and because I disagree with its policy prohibiting members from commenting on the current situation, I consider it my moral obligation to resign from this government, and to continue fulfillment the mandate the voters of Verdun-Saint-Paul have given me. Therefore, as of today, I will sit as an independent member.
I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I still consider the Prime Minister to be a trustworthy, honest person since he has made every possible effort to ensure that the integral nature of the Meech Lake Accord is upheld.
I want to assure my constituents from Verdun-Saint-Paul that I will continue to represent them and to serve them to the best of my knowledge and ability. The 1,200 members of our local association know that I have always favoured the Quebec option.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak the words that have been playing at the back of my mind for months now: Mr. Levesque, you were right after all. Thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to mention to the hon. members that we have heard a question of privilege which is entirely personal. Another statement would not be appropriate at this time. According to the Standing

May 22, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Orders, there is perhaps another place and another time for such discussions. However, now is surely not the time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
1990-91 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A)

[Stage Direction]
L'hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board): A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (A) of the sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, and in accordance with the provisions of section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, was presented by Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Mr.   de Cotret@: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Orders 81(5) and 81(6), I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1991, laid upon the Thble earlier this day, be referred to
the Several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
Indian and Northern Affairs, Item 6a.
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture
Agriculture, Items 5a and 15a
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and
Immigration
Employment and Immigration, Items 10a and 16a
And that a message be sent to the Senate advising the hon.
senators of these motions.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does it please the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion is agreed to.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 66 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties. Although I know it is irregular for a member of the Opposition to rise on motions and propose a motion, I think you would find unanimous consent for me to put this motion to the House. It deals with these rather sad events that have happened in Canada recently, in Montreal and Ottawa, dealing with Jewish cemeteries. I would like to put this motion, with the support of the government. I think the hon. House leader will support this. The House leader for the NDP, the hon. member for Kamloops, would like to second this motion, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put the motion once the consent has been given.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the proposition of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that there have been consultations. This is a very important initiative and I would be honoured, on behalf of my party, to second the motion.


Mr. Marcel Danis (Vercheres):: Speaking on behalf of the government, Mr. Speaker, I would say that there has indeed been consultation and that we fully agree with the proposal made by the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I move:
May 22, 1990

That this House condemn and deplore acts of racism and
intolerance in Canadian society that have been manifested by
vandalism in cemeteries and call on all Canadians to reject such
destructive and violent incidents.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 which has been certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions from citizens of Kamloops, British Columbia. This now brings the total to nearly 20,000 people from that constituency who have signed petitions in opposition to the goods and services tax. They are asking the government to reconsider proceeding with this tax, to go back to the drawing board and to come back to the House of Commons with serious, meaningful and fair tax reform.


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of submitting a series of petitions signed by people from across the country-Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia-requesting that the government, and especially Parliament, defeat the goods and services tax. More particularly, Mr. Speaker, these people are asking the government to recognize that the economic survival of the country demands that the GST be cancelled, and they ask the Senate to take all possible steps to obstruct this pernicious bill.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 36 to present petitions from small business operators in my constituency of New Westminster-Burnaby in British Columbia.
These small business people say that the goods and services tax forces small business operators to cany a disproportionate share of the tax burden in Canada. They call upon this government to reject the goods and services tax and, in future, to consult with business,
Routine Proceedings
labour and consumer groups in order to reach a broad consensus on how taxation should be handled in a fair and equitable manner for all its citizens.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit, in accordance with Standing Order 36, two petitions from Chibougamau, in the electoral riding of Roberval, concerning the recommendations made by the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas. Those who signed the petitions reject the conclusions of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas and request that Chibougamau be recognized as an isolated community under the existing tax benefit scheme.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, under the same standing order, I have a petition signed by approximately 100 people from Edmonton with respect to Mr. Yi-Shih Leo, a Canadian citizen who is imprisoned in Taiwan. They have asked that the government make every effort to have this Canadian citizen released as quickly as possible.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 52 with respect to an emergency debate on the subject that was a few moments ago made the subject of a unanimous all-party agreement. I am referring to the recent desecration of Jewish cemeteries and to other acts that are completely

May 22, 1990
Routine Proceedings
unknown, unacceptable and improper in Canadian society.
My motion was to ask for the House to have a debate, although this is a busy day, perhaps at eight or nine o'clock tonight. I am told that other members would be interested in engaging in such a debate tonight.
Under the terms of reference on such motions, Sir, the Government of Canada can do a number of things. It can use all federal resources, for example CSIS, the RCMP and External Affairs, to try to find out what seems to be at the root of this. We could set up a commission, for example, to find out whether the schools have curricula that are encouraging mutual respect.
I appreciate, Sir, that we have just passed a motion with all-party support, but I would like to put this motion on the record for your consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton Southeast has applied under the appropriate order for an emergency debate on a matter which I think creates a great deal of anguish for all members of the House and the vast majority of Canadians.
However, I think the hon. member has anticipated my ruling in this case. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier proposed a motion, with unanimous consent, which was seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops and supported by the government condemning these acts of desecration.
Under the circumstances, I do not think it would be appropriate to adjourn the other business of the House for a debate today. I thank the hon. member for his courtesy.
5fc	s(c



POINT OF ORDER


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to a point of privilege raised by the member for Calgary West on Friday, May 18.
I would like to make several short points in order to respond to the hon. member for Calgary West. I do appreciate that the hon. member followed proper procedure on Friday by informing my office shortly after 9 a.m. before raising the question after 12 noon. Of course, last
Thursday he raised a similar question and, although he did not give the Speaker the required one-hour notice and he had to be reminded by the Speaker to put the appropriate motion, I was willing to respond immediately to the experienced member's concern.
Although my state of mind, my mens rea, I believe is the legal term, did not intend to cast aspersions on the hon. member, I saw, on reflection, how my remarks could be incorrectly interpreted so I immediately rectified the situation.
Now, some seven weeks after that original comment in the House, the hon. member says there is a question of privilege.
On page 8430 of Hansard the hon. Transport minister, then Justice Minister and government House leader, said about me:
I guess I have to say that a lot of hours go into this job from everybody. Being a member of Parliament means that you are on top of what is going on in this House while the House is open and sitting. If you cannot be there yourself then you have party people who keep you advised of what is happening and what your responsibilities are. If you do not want to go through your party official you can always ask the Thble.
Mr. Speaker, that statement was made with regard to me and I think the hon. House leader's sage remarks are read and certainly understood.
I am the only member of my party in the House and my staff and I try to keep track of everything that goes on in the House. If the hon. member cannot rely on his party officials' competence or ability to keep him informed, then it is up to him, certainly, to read Hansard himself or have his staff review it for him. If the hon. member feels overworked perhaps he ought to lighten his workload so that he is able to keep up with what is going on in the House as well.
This brings me to citation 82 in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition at page 25 which reads:
A question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity. Even a gap of a few days may invalidate the claim for precedence in the House.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the awareness of a single member, many weeks after the original statement, does not meet the time requirement for a question of privilege in this House.
Also, I do note that there were several other members of the member's own party in the House at the time of my statement on April 5. Had they believed there to be a
May 22, 1990

question of privilege it would have surely been brought up immediately at the time.
The Merriam Webster Dictionary says of the words bribe, bribed or bribery: "to corrupt or influence (one in a position of trust) by favours or gifts, something offered or given in bribe". As a teacher by profession, Mr. Speaker, I tend to rely on dictionary definitions, unlike lawyers who use the Criminal Code.
As no member rose to raise a question of privilege before now, I believe the majority of members took my words and meaning at the dictionary value and did not take it that I meant any legal definition to my words. I was using my statement to reflect an aspect of Parliament perceived by Canadians and which, I believe, is in need of reform.
As this House knows, I was elected as a member of the Reform Party of Canada. The Reform Party believes in, stands for and speaks about constitutional reform and parliamentary reform. We believe in the message of reform and in fundamental reform to Parliament, this institution, to make the elected representatives more responsive to the wishes of their constituents, and we do not believe this institution functions perfectly.
I do not believe this is contempt of Parliament but rather a necessary expression of the views of many Canadians in a democracy and a fundamental, absolute privilege granted all members of Parliament to function effectively in a democratic society. I will not be stifled or intimidated into criticizing practices which I, and many other Canadians, view as morally reprehensible.
I must stand on the meaning which I intended to deliver which was that there are presently in the parliamentary system rules, practices, customs and laws which are designed to serve the political parties for which MPs are elected and the Monarch's Governor General's Privy Council rather than serving the constituents who elected them, unfortunately.
I meant to say that if promises of rewards are used to garner support from wavering MPs, such as favours or patronage appointments and positions, while not constitutionally or statutorily illegal, certainly looked upon badly by the public. I meant to draw attention that day to the need for parliamentary reform and the need to make this House a place where constituents' views are expressed, not just party views.
Routine Proceedings
I am not in contempt of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, I am only a messenger of public contempt of practices of patronage that undermine trust in our democratic institutions. It is not time to condemn me as a messenger. It is time to set up a royal commission empowered to examine all parliamentary practices.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I have made reference to the proceedings on Friday. The complaint raised by the hon. member for Calgary West was that the hon. member had said in this Chamber: "We know that other members are being bribed to vote for the GST or risk losing precious lifetime pensions".
Those are the words complained of. The hon. member has very strong views concisely expressed about other aspects of this place and politics in the country. Those are the words complained of, and it is those words I have to look at ultimately to determine this question.
I would ask the hon. member to deal with that particular statement and confine her closing remarks to it because that is the statement which, as I understand it, is complained of.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, when this was originally raised on Thursday afternoon, you will recall that you made a ruling on it immediately after seeing the particular editorial. You ruled that because I had stood up and retracted my comment you considered the case closed. I immediately put out a press release retracting that, and I assumed in all good faith that the whole thing was closed.
When I was out in my riding on Friday I discovered that it had apparently come up again. I just wanted to make sure that I was on the record here to say that I believed you when you said the issue was closed. For my part it is closed, and certainly I trust for the hon. member for Calgary West the issue is closed as well.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, when I rose last Thursday it was on the basis of an editorial. I agree with the member that the issue at that point in terms of that editorial was closed. I subsequently discovered that the comments had been made in the House. The motivation that I had last Thursday was to rise

May 22, 1990
Routine Proceedings
because of what the editorial said about my personal behaviour.
On reading Hansard of April 5 and the phrase "we know that other members are being bribed to vote for the GST or risk losing precious lifetime pensions" it is obvious, I think to anyone who is a student of the Criminal Code of Canada, Section 119, that an accusation of bribery is a very serious offence.
In terms of Section 41 of the Parliament of Canada Act, a member is prohibited from receiving any compensation whether "directly or indirectly, for services rendered or to be rendered" in relation to any "matter before the Senate or the House of Commons or a committee of either House". A member who contravenes this section is liable to a fine of $500 to $2,000 and for five years after conviction of that offence is "disqualified from being a member of the House of Commons and from holding any office in the Public Service of Canada".
I rise on the question of privilege on behalf of all members because there is an opportunity in this Chamber. All a member who feels that any member of this place has behaved inappropriately, has indeed been bribed and has succumbed to that bribe has to do is rise in his or her place and name the member and ask for the matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Otherwise, we are all tarred with the brush of unspecified members. If the member believes that any member of this Chamber has been bribed, he or she should simply rise and make the charge. I did that in relation to the behaviour of two of my colleagues voting twice in the Chamber some weeks ago.
An hon. member puts his own reputation on the line by naming members, but one cannot leave all members of this Chamber accused of being bribed and succumbing to the bribe. It is simply inappropriate. Mr. Speaker, if you find that there is a question of privilege, I would be happy to move the usual motion.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beaver River made it absolutely clear that when she spoke the words she was not
suggesting that any member of Parliament was in breach of the Criminal Code of Canada.
As she indicated, whenever words are spoken, quite often lawyers in this place tend to rush immediately to the law library and pull out the Criminal Code of Canada. She indicated that she was using the word "bribe " or "bribery" in the dictionary sense, not in the Criminal Code sense, and she did retract.
For the member to keep persisting in suggesting that the member was referring to the Criminal Code of Canada is irresponsible in my view. Mr. Speaker, I think you have made it absolutely clear that there is not a point of privilege. For the hon. member to press the point simply indicates to Canadians that perhaps there is a lot more to what the hon. member for Beaver River had to say.
Canadians generally agree that a lot of arm twisting goes on in this place in order for government members to fall into line. Canadians from coast to coast read about the pressure tactics that were being used in order to ensure that government members were supporting the goods and services tax.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for York South-Weston for his intervention. I am going to look carefully at the reference that has been referred to, and I will look carefully at what the hon. member for Beaver River said not only today but several days ago.
I note in passing that the comment complained about by the hon. member for Calgary West was made on April 5, which is quite a long time ago. As hon. members know, if a point is to be made it should be raised at the earliest opportunity. I have mentioned that in passing.
I also want to make it clear that in the words complained of "we know that other members are being bribed to vote for the GST or risk losing precious lifetime pensions", I think the House should know that the Speaker is fully aware that pensions are something that go with the amount of time spent in the House and are not related in any way, shape or form to the particular party of the member, unless the allegation was suggestive of a cabinet position.
However I will look carefully at what has been said and return to the House as soon as I can.
May 22, 1990



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 27, consideration of Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Order made Thursday, May 10, 1990, the House will now consider seriatim the select report stage motions as listed on today's Order Paper and Notice Paper with each member in whose name it stands speaking for up to 10 minutes immediately after his or her motion is moved.
Following those proceedings, any member may speak once for up to 10 minutes and may refer to any of the motions that have been moved.


MEASURE TO AMEND
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The first motion is Motion No. 3. Ms. Black, seconded by Mr. Riis, moves:
That Bill C-43 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 8 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"an abortion on a female person without her consent is guilty".


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to move Motion No. 3.1 originally submitted it along with Motion No. 9 and, without Motion No. 9, it really does not make any sense, so I would ask that it be stricken from the record. I will not be moving it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion withdrawn.
Motion No. 3 withdrawn


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) moved:: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-43 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 10 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty".
Government Orders
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the beginning of a debate that will last for two days. It is not a partisan debate perhaps, but a debate involving members of Parliament of various stripes who are dealing with a very profound issue, an issue involving life itself.
That being said, I move this motion to change the sentencing provisions from two years to 20 years to reflect on the severity of the crime involved. What we are talking about here in this amendment is to amend the bill which right now has a term not exceeding two years-and I read from the bill-as the sentencing for contravening the new proposed Section 287 of the Criminal Code.
This bill is a bill to outlaw abortion. It has a number of exceptions included in it, but the stated purpose of the bill is the following, and I read from the first lines of Section 287: "Every person who induces an abortion on a female person is guilty of an indictable offence".
That being said, if we are talking about an individual is guilty of an indictable offence and then serves two years imprisonment for contravening that indictable offence, the message we are sending out is that this is a Criminal Code provision, but a Criminal Code provision which is not necessarily very serious.
Mr. Speaker, if you wonder why I make that charge, why I say that a two-year sentence is inappropriate for contravening the abortion law, I want to compare the sentence to other sentences applied in various situations. I will read from the Criminal Code of Canada and I will provide examples to the Chair of various other sentences and the punishment imposed in various cases.
Section 233(1) of the Criminal Code is entitled "Dangerous Operation of Motor Vehicles, Vessels, and Aircraft". That has a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. "Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm", this has a penalty of a term not exceeding 10 years.
Often in the Criminal Code we see the expression used "punishable upon summary conviction". That means, according to my colleagues who are learned in the law, that the sentences could be as much as two years less a day; in other words, virtually the same thing as the government's proposed abortion bill.

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
I give an example of bills that have as a punishment a summary conviction. Section 234(1) of the Criminal Code: "Failure To Keep Watch On Person Towed". If someone is being towed behind a boat, the penalty for failing to watch that person is summary conviction; in other words, potentially two years less a day. The "Towing of Person After Dark" section reads:
(2) Every one who operates a vessel while towing a person on any water skis, surf board, water sled or other object during the period from one hour after sunset to sunrise is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Towing someone on water skis after dark has virtually the same penalty attached to it as contravening the abortion law, the taking of a human life.
The Law Reform Commission of Canada prepared a report entitled Crimes Against the Foetus some time ago. While I do not agree with everything in the report, I do support to a degree the comments made by Mr. Joseph Maingot, Q.C., former Law Clerk of Parliament, who said about laws generally the following:
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.
If that law symbolizes our values and beliefs, would it not also be true that the penalty attached to it would reflect the value we place on human life? When the penalty for committing an offence related to that law is two years, the same as towing someone on water skis by boat in the dark, then I submit we are not serious in adopting a law if we do not increase the penalty provisions that go along with it. For this law to have teeth, not only in terms of its enforcement but in terms of what it symbolizes, surely the sentencing should be 20 years, not two years. The penalty would then fit the crime of the destruction of a human life.

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell)
moves:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-43 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 16 at page 2 and substituting the following:
"twenty years".
Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief with regard to this amendment. As a matter of fact, this amendment is similar to the first one inasmuch as the penalty in the first motion is the same as in the second: obviously if contravening section 287 of the Criminal Code makes one liable to imprisonment for 20 years, it seems to me that the penalty for an infraction of the proposed section 288 of the Criminal Code should be the same.
Perhaps I should point out for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, and for that of all Canadians, that section 288 would punish everyone, and I quote the bill:
- who unlawfully supplies or procures a drug or other noxious thing or an instrument or thing, knowing that it is intended to be used or employed to induce an abortion on a female person.
Section 288, Mr. Speaker, refers to what our ancestors called a pessary. Therefore, if it is wrong to induce an abortion in a mechanical manner, if you will, using a medical means in the case of section 287, and if such action is to make a person liable to a maximum sentence of 20 years, it seems to me that the same penalty should apply for providing a pessary or a drug to a woman in order to induce an abortion and therefore, obviously, to end the life of the unborn child.
This having been said, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you and all my colleagues in this House to support the two amendments I have just moved.

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell)
moves:
Motion No. 5:
That Bill C-43 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 11
and 12 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"years, unless the abortion is induced by a medical practitioner".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish that the procedure were somewhat different this morning because I end up making my speeches one after the other and do not have the opportunity to hear comments from my colleagues. I invite those comments. I know we will have a full debate later but, nevertheless, debates in the House are always far more productive when a large number of members participate. That being said, I do not fault the process because it is better than what could have happened in a situation whereby we could have started for instance debating the first amendment and virtually spoken of
May 22, 1990

Government Orders
nothing else for two days. We could have eventually voted on amendments that had not been discussed in this Etouse.
The process may not be perfect but it is better than the alternative could have been so I do not want to be critical of those who have proposed the form that we have before us.
Dealing with the amendment in question, regardless of what side of the abortion issue one is on, surely one would recognize that this is a serious issue. It is so serious that in those rare cases where I believe that an abortion should be available surely then it should not be performed by anyone else but a medical doctor.
This motion was seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North who we all know is a medical doctor and a professor of medicine. I think it is particularly symbolic that this professor of medicine, my colleague from Winnnipeg North, agrees with this particular motion.
I think other members should note as well that whether one agrees with me that human life begins at conception, or at some other time prior to birth, the taking of that life involves just that, the taking of human life. If there is a situation that warrants the taking of that life, which I submit is the very rare occassion when the life of the mother is at risk, and I submit that it should be very rare, then surely only a medical practitioner should perform the abortion and not, as the bill proposes, a medical practitioner or someone under the direction of a medical practitioner.

Abortion, Mr. Speaker, is such a serious matter that we would certainly not want anyone but a physician to carry out such a procedure.
I maintain that abortions should be nearly non-existent but, in those rare instances where an abortion is required, surely it should not be performed merely by someone under the direction of a physician but actually by the doctor himself, or herself, as the case may be.
Therefore, I trust that my colleagues, whatever their views on the issue of abortion, whether they agree with me generally or not, will in all conscience agree that abortion is such a serious matter that it should definitely not be performed by anyone but a physician.


Don Boudria: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-43 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 14 at
page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"were not induced, the life of the".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this is the amendment of all amendments. It is the one that transforms this bill into a pro-life bill. We are two members who proposed similar amendments and I would want to state that publicly because it does not show on the record. My colleague across the way, the hon. member for Bruce-Grey, moved exactly the same amendment. I understand mine was on the Order Paper first and it was selected.
I want to indicate to the House that in fact two members representing two political parties have proposed exactly the same amendment. By far, this is the most serious amendment. If all other amendments fail, this is the one on which we should concentrate. At the conclusion of this debate, if this amendment does not pass, I do not intend to vote for the bill at third reading.
However if the amendment does pass, then I would like to wholeheartedly support the legislation.
The issue of abortion is not a new one, certainly. It is not something that we have to wrestle with as a modem society because it has never been dealt with before. It is a debate that has gone on for several millenniums. It is every bit as serious today as it ever was. I know those who disagree with me will invoke so-called "choice", as they have the right. However, I want all colleagues to remember that the choice of one should not be done at the expense of the life of another.
I was reminiscing this weekend. I was reading up on issues involving choice, freedom and liberty, and I was reminded of the United States civil war wherein the Confederates of the south were fighting the north. Young men were giving their lives for liberty, or so they claim. The liberty that they were seeking to preserve was that liberty which enabled them to subjugate someone else's liberty.
Similarly, when we invoke choice, we should remember that what we are saying is that the choice that we are allowed to make, according to those who advocate that point of view, is the choice not to bear a child even if it

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
means the destruction of the unborn child. I cannot agree with that proposition.
As I indicated before in another speech in this House, I do not know where life begins. I think it begins at conception, but I am not sure. I do know that when a child is born there was a child at some point before birth; otherwise, a child would not have been born. It would have been something else. If a child is born, then a child was in the womb. When a pregnant woman loses her life in an automobile accident, we never hear the comment that a woman and her foetus died. It is always: "the woman and her unborn child." The point I am making is that this woman obviously wanted that child. When her life and that of her unborn child are lost, we consider it two lives lost. When someone does not want to bear a child the destruction of it is not seen as the destruction of human life.
The degree to which we want that life seems to make us, as a society, able to make a decision whether life exists or not. Life does not exist because we want it or do not want it to be a life. Life exists because it is there. If that life is there, it is there whether it is wanted or unwanted, or whether parents are wanting or unwanting. It is there regardless of that consideration.
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is probably the most important amendment with which we will be dealing in this debate. Granted, it changes the bill radically, but more important, it gives an opportunity to speak positively on the value and dignity of human life.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East) moved:: Motion No. 12
That Bill C-43 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 16 at
page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"seriously threatened."
He said: Mr. Speaker, as we come down to the final hours of debate on Bill C-43, and we will be debating various amendments today and tomorrow, I do not think it comes as any surprise to members on either side of the House as to where the member for Fraser Valley East stands on this issue. It is an issue that crosses all party lines. It is an issue that is a family matter, an issue that each of us in the House must take very, very seriously.
On December 17, 1986,1 rose in the House to make a statement. At that time I said:
-British Columbia still has the highest abortion rate in the
country, 26 abortions for every 100 live births.
In other words, over 20 per cent of the children conceived in British Columbia are killed by abortion. That is a tragedy.
We are dealing with putting a law back on the books because the law that was on the books has been struck down. This morning I was looking through a book published by the Canadian Automobile Association in conjunction with Reader's Digest. It is entitled: You and the Law. It states in part:
The law under which we live was molded by men who wanted a wide range of individual freedom. But they knew that there must be rules indicating where the freedom of the individual ends and the freedom of others begins. For everybody to be free to use the highway, there must be rules of the road that everybody obeys; without them, the highway becomes a graveyard. The same considerations apply with equal force in many other avenues of life. Seen in this light, law is an instrument of liberation. It is not a series of booby traps cunningly concealed. It is, in large measure, a guide through the maze of human relationships that surround us, many of them strange until we have explored them.
You would not think of taking a journey through a strange country without a map and a guidebook. No one should expect to get through life without trouble unless he has some awareness of what the law permits and requires, and of the ways to conduct himself in the presence of the law.
What the House is endeavouring to do is to set the guidelines as to what we should have on the books with regard to abortion.
I have written to many of my constituents in terms of Bill C-43. In explaining it to them I have said that the bill attempts to address the void in the law that exists as a result of the 1988 Morgentaler decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which found the then law to be in conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since 1988, Canada has not had a law pertaining to abortion. This situation, I find, is intolerable. As a consequence, we have before us today Bill C-43.
In this bill the government is sending a message to our culture. It is saying to Canadian society, clearly and in no uncertain terms, that the taking of the life of an unborn is unacceptable.

May 22, 1990

This is an objective standard stipulated in the bill. It puts into place a benchmark, an established and acceptable norm. It lets Canadians, specifically the scientific and the the medical communities within Canada, know that this is the standard to which they must adhere.
To ensure that this bill addresses the issue in a realistic and workable manner the bill amends the Criminal Code. This ensures federal jurisdiction throughout all of Canada. The bill incorporates criminal sanctions in the case of violations of Criminal Code provisions.
Finally, the bill protects the life of the unborn from the moment of conception on.
What is often viewed as a major flaw in this bill is the health provision for exceptions to the Criminal Code provision. It is to this end that I am proposing the amendment that stands in my name, to achieve a stricter wording for the health provision.
Bill C-43 places the making of this medical decision in the hands of a woman and her physician. Without the doctor's recommendation an abortion cannot, by law, take place. Medical doctors are the only ones who can actually make the decision. They are the only ones capable of determining whether an exception to this law is valid and necessary.
A few weeks ago a publication was sent to all members of the House by the Citizens for Public Justice. The title of that publication was A Plea for Life and Justice for All. It was dated April 5.
On page 13, it asks the question: "What do doctors really think the abortion law should say?" The answer is taken from an August, 1989 survey done by the Canadian Physicians for Life which sponsored a survey of over 50,000 physicians in Canada. The survey group included all the 43,000 members of the CMA. The response rate of over 20 per cent, or 10,000, is quite large for a single mail-out survey to doctors, especially in the middle of the summer. The number of responses is over six times larger than that from the most recent 1982 CMA survey.
Some of the key responses were:
2/3 of physicians support some form of legal restraint on abortion.
2/3 of physicians find the broad definition of health as an
indication for abortion unacceptable.
Government Orders
2/3 of physicians see the CMA policy as representing abortion on
request, yet only a minority share this position on abortion.
We know that with the tremendous number of abortions-and I have cited what they are in British Columbia-we certainly do need something on our books with regard to abortion. It is not my proposal to deal with this in isolation from other members of the House.
When I was growing up, we heard medical reports concerning people who were in hospital. The major hospitals were not near my home. I lived in a very small community where there was no hospital. The reports would always state that "so and so was on the critical list", "so and so was deemed serious", or "so and so was doing well" and so on. You could get a sense of what was happening.
That is what I am trying to do here. I am trying to send a signal to the medical community for when it deals with the life or the health of a person being threatened and whether the word "seriously" is used in its terminology.
I also want to say that the next motion that will be before us is presented by the member for Kitchener. It states in part:
- the medical practitioner has concluded that there is no other
medically acceptable treatment to alleviate the health risk.
When it comes to the definition of health and the use of the words "physical, mental, and psychological", I am pleased that the amendment of the member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffille would delete the word "psychological". It states that the definition of "health" includes, for greater certainty, "physical and mental health".
I suggest to all members of the House when looking at these amendments these three be taken as a package. There are other amendments which each of us will have to consider seriously as to whether or not we should support them and whether the House can support them as a whole.
I would like to quote from another paragraph that was in the report of the Citizens for Public Justice. On page 14, it states:
We live in a broken world. All of us suffer, in one way or another,
from distortions and injustices due to our failure to do justice, show
mercy and walk humbly with God. But all of us still have both the

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
opportunity and the responsibility to be of healing service in our wounded world.
CPJ seeks to do justice to the Supreme Court's conclusion that the right to life of the human foetus may be protected by Parliament. We want also to ensure that alternatives to abortion are available. Women have a right to full information about the alternatives available to them in dealing with pregnancy.
I cannot put it more succinctly than that.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener) moved:: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-43 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 16 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"threatened and the medical practitioner has concluded that there is no other medically acceptable treatment to alleviate the health risk."
He said: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my comments with regard to this motion, I would like to commend the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on his comments in regard to the amendment that he put forward, Motion No. 10. I would like to say to him I strongly endorse and agree with his amendment. I will be supporting it when we come to it.
I would like to begin my remarks on my amendment by saying that my amendment should not be taken in isolation from two other amendments put forward by my colleagues the members for Fraser Valley East and Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
The three amendments taken together would, first, add the word "seriously" before the word "threatened" on line 16 at page 1.
Second, my amendment would add the words: "and the medical practitioner has concluded that there is no other medically acceptable treatment to alleviate the health risk".
The third amendment would specifically exclude the word "psychological" and, thereby, socioeconomic considerations, from the definition of health on page 1.
Taken together, all three amendments would greatly strengthen Bill C-43. Their total impact would be to make this bill, which is now pro-life in form but prochoice in substance, into a bill which would be pro-life in
both form and substance. The bill, so amended, would then truly balance the right of the mother to the security of the person in Section 7 of the Charter and society's interest in the protection of all human life from conception.
The Supreme Court, in its Morgentaler decision of January, 1988, spoke specifically only to the rights of the mother and not to her unborn child. However, the court clearly invited Parliament to consider the rights of the unborn, as Chief Justice Dickson stated:
Like Beetz and Wilson, I agree that the protection of the foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid government objective. It follows that balancing these interests with the lives and health of women is a major factor and clearly an important government objective.
These three amendments taken together would achieve that objective. The word "seriously" states the obvious. No abortion should be done frivolously or for non-medical considerations. But we all know that many are.
Dr. Morgentaler simply requires the signing of a consent form. This form was filed with the legislative committee on Bill C-43. All it requires is that the patient understand the risks of the operation and that she clearly wants the abortion. Dr. Morgentaler does not ascertain whether that abortion is therapeutically required to save the life or because of severe physical or mental risk to the mother. One just asks, signs a form to show one wants it and understands it, and then gets the abortion.
Second, by specifically excluding the word "psychological" from the definition of health, we are eliminating between 82 per cent and 96 per cent of all abortions. The Canadian Medical Association, when it appeared before the legislative committee, said the following:
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, such as severe depression with suicidal risk. Most of these psychiatric reasons are for psychological and social reasons, or humanitarian reasons.
Another group which appeared before the committee was the Canadian Physicians for Life. According to the Canadian Physicians for Life, 96 per cent of abortions are performed for non-medical reasons.
The Badgley report of 1977 indicated that 82 per cent of Canadian physicians surveyed for conditions under
May 22, 1990

which they would support a request for an abortion, could be accounted for by social and economic factors.
U.S. Planned Parenthood states that in 1988, in its experience, 96 per cent of abortions were performed for non-medical reasons.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women, when it appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-43 stated:
Women have abortions for many reasons. Most of them are social
and economic in origin.
Third, specifically to my amendment, I would like to say the following. The CMA, Physicians for Life and several other witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee told us that abortion is a medical act. In fact, according to Dr. Lamont of the CMA, abortion is a serious medical act which could even, although rarely, result in death.
From my experience as a hospital board member and the first chairman of the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital's Risk Management and Quality Assurance Committee, I know that every operation in every hospital involves a tissue analysis or pathological review and is subject to audit procedures to ensure that the medical act performed achieved the minimal risk concerning infections and was truly medically necessary. Yet there is no tissue analysis committee for the aborted child. There is no pathological review. There is no audit as to whether the medical act of abortion was truly necessary. Abortion is a privileged operation done, in the vast majority of cases, for non-therapeutic, non-medical reasons.
Therefore, although my amendment, if proper medical evaluations and procedures were followed would not be necessary, is unfortunately absolutely essential to ensure that they are.
The amendment would require doctors, in forming their opinion as to the necessity for the abortion, to do what they do for every other medical act, that is, determine whether there is any other medically acceptable treatment to alleviate the health risk.
This bill, weak though it is, does not provide for the medical act of abortion for cosmetic surgical reasons. In my opinion it is fundamentally wrong and surely unacceptable medically to use medical intervention to solve or deal with what are essentially, although sometimes
Government Orders
difficult, social problems. Nor should a doctor take out one's tonsils or appendix, or whatever, if there are other means to treat that health risk. Abortion should always and only be performed when there are no other medically acceptable means to treat or alleviate the health risk.
This is the practice in Salvation Army Hospitals, and no one could ever accuse the Salvation Army of a lack of compassion for those carrying an unwanted child. Their position statement given to the abortion committee contains in practice the essence of my amendment. It reads as follows:
The Salvation Army supports efforts to protect and promote the welfare of the weak and defenceless, including the unborn. It takes seriously the rights and needs of both the foetus and the mother. Termination of a pregnancy may be justified in those rare instances where, in the judgment of competent medical and allied staff, the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother or could result in serious physical injury to the mother.
Witnesses who supported and recommended the amendment I have put forward are Citizens for Public Justice, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, to name just three.
The Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops in speaking to such an amendment stated:
We are convinced that this amendment is critical to ensure that all therapeutic alternatives are explored and that abortion is not used to remedy other problems or the stress and anxiety that may ordinarily accompany unexpected or undesired pregnancy.
In seeking legal constitutional advice on the constitutionality of the three amendments taken together, I have found that although no one can foretell future decisions of the court with certainty, these three amendments should be constitutionally acceptable. In fact they might even enhance the constitutionality of Bill C-43 by providing greater clarity and certainty as to its definitions and intent.
Therefore, in conclusion, I urge members of this House to support each of these three amendments as well as Motion No. 10 put forward by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Motion No 14

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
That Bill C-43 be amended in clause 1 by striking out lines 18 to 20
at page 1.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, Motion Number 10, which was moved earlier, was intended to withdraw the element of health from criteria which would mean, in fact, that abortion would only be allowed when the life of the mother would likely be endangered.
Thus, since health would no longer be a criterion according to Motion no. 10, it goes without saying that Motion no. 14 would simply eliminate the definition of the word "health" included in the bill.
As we all know, the definition of "health" can be misused. My colleague, the member for Kitchener, was making precisely this type of comments earlier. According to him, the definition of "health" should be restricted. As far as I am concerned, it should simply be taken out, as long, of course, as there is agreement on the order relating to Motion no. 10.
To give you an idea of the definition, Mr. Speaker, according to the dictionary, the word "health" has various meanings, but in the bill it includes certain elements.
Let me read to you the definition of "health" given in the bill:
"sante" S'entend notamment de la sante physique, mentale et
psychologique.
At least that is what the French version says. It is a bit equivocal. If you refer to the English text, it says:

"health" includes, for greater certainty, physical, mental and
psychological health;

Therefore, the French text gives a very specific definition of health; but in the English text and, as we all know, both versions have force of law, of course and the word "health" includes the bill and lists everything and does not exclude anything.

"Flealth" can mean physical, mental and psychological, but does not exclude any other definition of health as well. It leads me to believe that health means absolutely anything you want it to mean.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North) moved:: Motion No. 16
May 22, 1990

That Bill C-43 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 19 at
page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"considerations of physical and mental factors as they cause a serious threat to life and".
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I speak to my proposed amendment I would like to indicate to the hon. members for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Fraser Valley East and Kitchener that, in essence, the substance of my motion complements theirs. I will be supporting their proposed amendments.
One of the most serious problems evident in Bill C-43 is the vagueness with which "health" is defined. The Supreme Court of Canada in deciding the Morgentaler case indicated that health must be defined clearly.
If you do not define and require at least that the gravity of health must be considered, then it is really vague. Even before that, to include the word "psychological" would in fact allow for such vagueness to be legalized.
The former Minister of Justice stated that "psychological health" included behaviour, emotions and problems of adjustment to the environment. He further stated that the word "psychological" is broad enough to utilize the word "socioeconomic".
Under his interpretation of this bill, and as he stated when he was asked at committee, poverty itself may be a basis for abortion. That will not be acceptable.
Because the word psychological is broad and nebulous, it will give occasion for abuse and would permit abortion for any form of distress.
Moreover, without the amendment that I have proposed, physicians would not have the clear guidance that they ought to have from this piece of legislation. Some physicians may interpret it as allowing abortions if the woman is merely unhappy with or inconvenienced by an unwanted pregnancy.
The bill itself even advances the erroneous idea that abortion can aid a woman's psychological health, for which there is no evidence, medically speaking. As a consequence, there could be a serious adverse effect on the relationship between physician and patient. A woman who desires an abortion, for no medical reasons, could be led not to tell the whole truth about her ailment, about the conditions that truly affect her medically. When that happens, the relationship between
Government Orders
patient and physician becomes threatened. How can a doctor issue a proper diagnosis when the medical history is not full and thorough? How can a physician make a diagnosis when the information that the physician is receiving is clouded?
With such a loose definition of health, the foetus, the unborn is not protected at all. In fact, we may ask the question, why Bill C-43? The reason we are proposing a bill against abortion is precisely because we would like to protect another life, or there is no basis for this medical procedure to be in the Criminal Code. To me, the only indication why this medical procedure ought to be in the Criminal Code, in contrast to other medical and surgical procedures, is because this is the only procedure for which, when done unnecessarily, the life of the unborn is truly compromised.
Therefore, if we allow this bill without the amendment that I have proposed, it will result in abortion on demand and the protection of the unborn would be an illusory situation.
Before 1940, almost all indications for abortion were truly medically therapeutic. By 1950, many so-called psychiatric reasons accounted for more than 50 per cent of all abortions. Currently, 90 per cent of all abortions are performed on the basis of so-called psychiatric disorders. But the degree with which these disorders are assessed, whether they truly threaten the life or the health of the mother, is certainly subject to question.
In summary, I have proposed the amendment that we consider physical and mental factors, and in a sense deleting the word "psychological", because that will be included in "mental", but with the understanding on the part of the medical profession that the degree of mental disturbance ought to be severe and that this severity of disturbance would seriously threaten the life and health of the patient.
That is the essence of my proposed amendment.
I wish to quote the first two principles from the 1990 edition of the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association. First, consider the well-being of the patient. As I have indicated, when a physician approaches a pregnant woman as a patient, that physician automatically has two patients, the woman herself and the unborn she is carrying. The second principle is, honour your profession and its traditions. It has been the tradition of medicine that the physician protects all his patients in

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
this instance, both the pregnant woman and the unborn child in her womb.


Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso) moved:: Motion No. 17A
That Bill C-43 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 19 at
page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"physical and mental".
He said: Mr. Speaker, before addressing my own amendment to Bill C-43,1 would like to compliment my friend and colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, for his diligent work on the legislative committee studying Bill C-43. As a medical doctor, he has added an important element to the committee's deliberations. I also want to compliment him on the eloquent and persuasive manner in which he spoke in support of his amendment, Motion No. 16. I want to say at the outset that I fully support his amendment even though its passage will make a vote on my own unnecessaiy.
I would also like to associate myself with the amendments proposed by my colleagues, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, as well as the member for Kitchener, and the member for Fraser Valley East who spoke earlier.
Motion No. 17A, a motion which I have proposed, seeks to limit and strengthen the definition of "health" in Clause 2 of Bill C-43 by removing "psychological" as a relevant category of health that would make abortion legal under this legislation. I have proposed this restriction for three main reasons.
First, in my view, the inclusion of psychological health as a relevant consideration for procuring an abortion, in particular as the term has been used in the explanatory notes to the legislation, and in the words of the former Minister of Justice, virtually sanctions abortion on demand.
In fact, I submit that it would be worse than abortion on demand. If no reasonable medical grounds can be found to justify the procedure-which, if we are honest with ourselves, is the case in all but the rarest of circumstances-women would then have to describe the psychological trauma, real or imagined, that carrying the baby to term might produce.
In the naturally stressful situation of an unwanted pregnancy, for whatever reason, the law would provide no support for passing through the early anxieties to what may be a far different frame of mind, if the option to carry the pregnancy to term was chosen.
The law would allow the psychological consideration to justify an easy way out.
This is not to deny that real socioeconomic or health factors may be at the root of these concerns. The woman may be facing the prospect of single parenthood on a low income. She may be a teenager. The new arrival may provoke a confronting and bewildering adjustment to her lifestyle and to that of her family. These are real situations. They deserve the support and compassion of society. They call for programs and policies that get at the root of these situations, not for the panacea of abortion, of snuffing out the life of an unborn child.
A second reason for proposing this amendment relates to cases where foetuses are found to be physically deformed, underdeveloped, or mentally handicapped. Modern methods of ultrasound technology now make it possible to identify these cases at early stages of pregnancy. Naturally, a woman who faces the prospect of giving birth to a handicapped or deformed child would be anxious to have this cup pass her by.
Physically and mentally disadvantaged children, whether arising from birth or accident, impose new costs on society. Yet, in a deeper sense, they add an important richness to our society, to the humanity which we all share, as those who have worked with or been privileged to be associated with celebrated cases of persons suffering from these handicaps will only too readily testify. This richness is in peril if we permit, as the psychological reference in Bill C-43 would permit, abortions for so-called eugenic considerations.
A childhood friend, Mary MacLennan, who was bom with no arms, with the support of her family and community has gone on to become a successful lawyer, said this before the committee on Bill C-43: "If this is the way that those who are making the laws are thinking and this is what is being used to influence people, then I think those with a disability, whether you are born with one or whether you acquire one when you walk out that
May 22, 1990

door and try to cross the street, I think you have to be very concerned about creating a mentality like that".
Finally, I reject the claim made in defence of the psychological provision that the Supreme Court decision in the Morgentaler case makes this a necessary part of any abortion legislation. The government's background notes to Bill C-43 state on page 6 that "based on the majority reasons for judgment in the Morgentaler case, permitting an abortion if the psychological health of the woman is threatened, is constitutionally required".
I believe that this statement is a serious misreading of the words of the Supreme Court decision.
The Chief Justice in the Morgentaler decision blames the delays caused by abortion committees and the lack of a definition of health for the psychological threat to a woman's security of person. He states: "The psychological injury caused by delay in obtaining abortions, much of which must be attributed to the procedures set out in Section 251, constitutes an additional infringement of the right of the security of the person".
Further, he adds: "There is increased psychological stress imposed upon women who are forced to wait for abortions, and that this stress is compounded by the uncertainty of whether or not a therapeutic abortion committee will actually grant approval".
Nowhere does the decision state that the absence of a psychological health consideration is a breach of security of person.
Bill C-43, amended by Motion No. 17A, sufficiently eliminates these delays. There are no procedural delays and there is a more precise definition of health. In fact, by providing a more precise definition of health, by saying up front what will and will not be accepted as grounds for abortions, and by grounding these conditions in an honest and rigorous application of medical science, abortion legislation is enhancing the security of the person, of the unborn child and of the expectant mother. It will foster a responsible attitude in both women and men toward their sexual behaviour.
The wishy-washy inclusion of psychological health in this loose clause of Bill C-43 plays to the weakness in us all. It invites us to invent reasons to use to extricate ourselves from difficulties which, had the easy options
Government Orders
not been so readily available, we may have chosen to avoid.
For these reasons, the health definition is one of the most glaring weaknesses of this legislation which would need to be strengthened before Bill C-43 could enjoy my support. My motion is an attempt to do that.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville) moved:: Motion No 17B
That Bill C-43 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 19 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"physical and mental health, and does not include psychological".
He said: Mr. Speaker, as a pro-life person, I am disappointed in Bill C-43 as it now stands. It is not restrictive enough. Therefore, I wish to put forth an amendment which would delete the word "psychological" from the definition of health.
In its brief to the committee the Canadian Medical Association stated: "It is recognized that 85 per cent to 95 per cent of induced abortions are done for psychiatric reasons, but there are veiy few absolute psychiatric reasons that are a threat to life such as severe depression with suicidal risk. Most of these psychiatric reasons are for psychological and social reasons or humanitarian reasons".
I want to make the point that my amendment is part of a group of three pro-life amendments put forth by my colleagues from Fraser Valley East, British Columbia and Kitchener, Ontario. I would also like to associate myself with Motion No. 10 standing in the name of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada, when speaking in opposition to the capital punishment debate on June 22, 1987, made the following statement:
All of us share in the tragedy and sorrow of the taking of a human life, whether criminally inspired or from anger or passion -It is wrong to take life, and I can think of no circumstance excepting self-defence to justify it.
The act of abortion is clearly the taking of a life. The abortion issue is the most important issue this thirty-fourth Parliament will deal with. While many people contend that Bill C-43 accommodates all views, it certainly does not satisfy my pro-life position. Virtually all pro-life people I have spoken with believe that the bill is weak and flawed. That is why this package of amendments is needed in order to protect the unborn

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
human foetus. Canada has been without abortion legislation now for over two years. I believe legislation is urgently required in order to protect the unborn.
In their brief the Citizens for Public Justice make this statement in the introduction: "The abortion issue probes the values of our nation. It is messy, complicated, and explosive. Most people wish it would just go away. But this issue cannot go away. What we decide to do with it will tell us something fundamental about who we are and what we value. Therefore, evading the abortion issue is as much a decision as any action we may take".
Then they go on to state; "Our national response to this challenge will show what kind of people we are, what kind of future we seek both for our children and our grandchildren, and for Canadian women who must make agonizing decisions".
My wife Sandy and I have shared two personal experiences in our lives which profoundly affect our views on abortion: that abortion only be performed when the mother's life is at risk or in certain circumstances involving rape or incest.
I believe the choice of adoption should be considered by any woman who is considering an abortion. Many couples would love the opportunity to raise a little boy or girl. Sandy and I decided to adopt a baby boy in 1968. We had a family of one son, Howard, and two daughters, Pamela and Leslie, at the time. We believed we could provide a new young son with a warm family life.
So in the summer of 1968 we adopted John Fraser Attewell who was 11 months old at the time. His natural mother had one other baby and was unable financially to raise another child. Fraser will be 22 years old this August. He is married and he and his wife Robin have a young son, William Cody Attewell.
Sandy and I have often thought that if an abortion had been easy to obtain 20 years ago, we may not have had Fraser as a son.
There are thousands of parents in Canada who hope and pray for the loving opportunity to adopt a son or daughter.
As members of Parliament, it is up to us to provide legislation which will protect the unborn. It is up to us to fight for their lives. Thank God we had doctors and nurses who fought for the life of our granddaughter, Heather Attewell.
A little over two years ago, our son Howard and his wife Linda were excitedly awaiting the birth of their first child. Unfortunately complications developed. Heather was born two months premature and weighed only two and one-half pounds. It was then discovered that Heather could not swallow because her oesophagus was not connected to her stomach. Heather spent the first six months of her life in Sick Children's Hospital under the loving care of many professionals. Heather is now two years old. Most of her food is still fed to her through a tube in her stomach, but she is learning to swallow. She is beginning to talk now and she has a baby brother, Derek Attewell.
Hundreds of people were praying for Heather's survival when she was first born. Our prayers were answered. Heather had many people praying and fighting for her life. The doctors and nurses and other assistants were splendid in their professional and caring treatment. We were fighting for Heather's life.
I do not know how many members here have held a two and one-half pound baby. I have, and you see how vulnerable and dependent they are. But let us think of an unborn child, how totally vulnerable and totally dependent they are on us. We as parliamentarians have a grave responsibility to fight for the lives of all unborn children. We can help do this by passing appropriate legislation.
In their brief Citizens for Public Justice recognizes the fact that abortion is the tragic result of a society which does not sufficiently support women, children and families. Therefore, while life protecting legislation is needed, such legislation is not enough. I quote from the brief: "Social policy needs to address many of the factors which lead women to seek abortions".
The brief continues: "CPJ calls upon the federal government to extend its co-operation with the provincial governments to implement an even more comprehensive social policy that addresses factors which lead women to seek abortions, such as prevention of unintended pregnancies, better access to counselling, provi-
May 22, 1990

sion of a full range of adoption options, housing initiatives, and so on. The above list is intended only to introduce areas of concern".
In closing, I sincerely hope and pray that the proposed pro-life amendments will be passed in order to strengthen more adequately Bill C-43 in order to protect the lives of the unborn.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-43 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 3 at
page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"medical profession, developed from a solid body of scientific knowledge."
He said: Mr. Speaker, again before I proceed to speak to this proposed amendment, I would like to add my voice of support for the amendments advanced by the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso who spoke so eloquently on his proposed amendment and the member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
My proposed amendment in essence emphasizes the need to ensure that the medical opinion shall be based only on a solid body of scientific knowledge and not on a popular opinion obtained by survey polls. The medical standards ought not to be variable, not varying from province to province, not based on fad and fashion, but in fact based on scientific knowledge.
It is necessary to emphasize this point because when diagnosing a woman who is seeking an abortion, a physician may be more preoccupied with the transient, immediate distress of the woman and less with the long-term health of that particular woman. When a physician is guided by popular opinion and not by true scientific knowledge, a physician may do more harm than good to his or her patient.
When physicians allow themselves to be swayed by popular fashion in making critical medical judgments instead of adhering to scientific standards they may not provide the proper medical care. The bottom line is that the physician's decision must be guided by the science of good medicine. Otherwise he or she becomes less of a doctor, only providing a service for a fee, and that is not in the highest standard and tradition of the medical profession.
What some of those who advocate abortion on demand overlook, I submit, is that if pregnancy is to be cosidered as a disease, which it is not, then abortion certainly is not
Government Orders
the therapy either, because we know that after the duration of nine months of pregnancy the whole condition will solve itself.
There are no controlled studies which indicate that abortion is a treatment for normal pregnancy, although the pregnancy may be associated with some emotional and psychological distress.
It is in the tradition of medicine that when a patient sees a physician, first the physician obtains a medical history from the patient, a thorough history of all information relevant to the chief complaint. In this given case, what we would like to be clear is that the physician will continue to adopt the strict science of medicine and ascertain why a woman is asking for an abortion. We know that there can be many reasons including: "I do not like this pregnancy because I cannot afford to support this child after birth", "I do not like this pregnancy because I will not be able to pursue my own professional career", "I do not like this pregnancy because I just do not like it".
The answer to these questions and concerns is not abortion. The answer is counselling, giving the woman true options on how we can help that pregnant woman truly asking for our help go about solving the reasons why she has asked for an abortion.
Next, following the receipt of all the medical information, the physician makes a diagnosis and thereafter considers whether a given treatment approach is indicated or not. It is never the case in medicine that the patient decides "give me this treatment" and the physician follows hook, line and sinker without first getting the medical history, without forming his diagnosis or diagnoses, and without in fact discussing with the patient the alternatives to treatment and management.
When a physician reaches the point of making the treatment plan for his or her patient, then he or she considers whether the treatment approach ought to be medical or surgical. In considering those treatment modalities, the physician also considers the options of treatment-the first, second and third option-and considers the side effects that may emanate from any treatment. This is what I feel this law must enshrine. When a physician forms his or her medical opinion, the physician must be guided and guided only by the science of medicine, by a body of scientific knowledge, and not by popularity, not by fashion, not by fad, and not by a vote during a convention.

May 22, 1990
In this instance I am really saddened that the Canadian Medical Association, of which I am a member, took a vote in one medical convention and then asked how many were in favour of this particular position, without basis whatsoever of scientific knowledge sustaining that. Yet the President of the Canadian Medical Association, before the legislative committee that examined this bill, admitted that medical opinion must be based on scientific knowledge.
Therefore, it is only proper that this House supports my proposed amendments so that we can clarify and enshrine good medical practice. In so doing we will truly ensure the value of this bill and protect the unborn for which this bill has been created.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Prior to moving to the next item and prior to the adjournment for lunch, I want to indicate to the House that I will not be moving Motion No. 20 standing in my name.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motion No. 20 will be dropped.
Motion No. 20 withdrawn


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all who knew him, I wish to pay special tribute today to an outstanding man from Val-d'Or, Dr. Romuald Pa-quet, who died on May 11, 1990.
The messages of sympathy from his colleagues attest to Dr. Paquet's brilliant career, his contribution and his remarkable devotion to medicine. The staff of the operating room do not hesitate to say that Dr. Paquet's
career will go down in the history of Val-d'Or's Saint-Sauveur Hospital and they add:
"It is part of the life of most of us. As a doctor, obstetrician, anesthetist and labour relations man, he knew all the affection we had for him. He was a kind man. His patients esteemed him because he cared about their security and well-being. Because of all the years we worked with him, because of all the happy or difficult times we shared, because of everything that makes a team, he will always be with us in a way. To him, we say thanks and farewell".
Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer his family my sincere condolences and my deepest sympathy.


ANTI-SEMITISM
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the desecration of Jewish cemeteries in Canada and France is a horrible act reopening a chapter in the history of humanity which we thought, and hoped, had been closed once and for all. President Mitterand spoke for us all when he said last week "Respect for the living depends on respect for the dead".
The all-party motion passed by the House this morning expresses veiy well the sentiments of all Canadian parliamentarians. Having registered our collective indignation, our task now is to take this message to our respective communities and urge other elected officials to reinforce the climate of mutual tolerance, the respect and human bonds which make up this great country of ours, Canada.


SASKATCHEWAN ECONOMY
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon - Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, a recent article in the Wall Street Journal depicting Saskatchewan as a depressed province which votes socialist is a fine example of journalistic bias. It is true that Saskatchewan is a depressed area. The implication that this is because of a socialist government is totally unfounded.
For the last eight years the province has been governed by a Conservative government. When Grant Devine's government came to power the Treasury had a balance of $139 million and a per capita debt of $1,300. In
May 22, 1990

1990, after eight years of Tory mismanagement, the per capita debt is $13,000.
A have province under the NDP Allan Blakeney's government, Saskatchewan has become a have-not province with the fastest growing poverty rate in the country. Three hundred communities have had notable population loss since 1986. In 1989 Saskatchewan recorded the highest level of bankruptcies in its history. Since 1985 more than 60,000 people have left Saskatchewan.
Whatever The Wall Street Journal implies, the fact remains that Saskatchewan is a victim of continuing Conservative mismanagement.
[DOT]k	Jfi


ANTI-SEMITISM
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, when I rose in this House on May 11 condemning the desecration of a Jewish cemetery in France, little did I expect that isolated incident to become a terrible pattern of racism and anti-Semitism through ghoulish acts recently in Ottawa and Quebec City. Further stories about the desecration of Catholic and other cemeteries across Canada have also come to light.
Something is changing in Canada when sick minds feel they must express their political or religious views by defacing tombstones, disturbing graves, violating consecrated ground. Imagine the heartache, horror, and fear being rekindled by these acts, especially among Holocaust survivors whose aim was preventing future generations from inheriting the past as their future.
People of all religions, at all levels of government, do not accept these sick, depraved acts of bigotry just as they reject similar acts of violence reflecting deep-seated, unfounded and unprovoked expressions of racism, anti-Semitism, or anti-feminism. Speaking out is essential.
While we must find the perpetrators of these crimes, the proper solutions must also be found to reinforce civility, acceptable community behaviour and our belief in tolerance, decency and mutual respect for basic human rights as the Canadian hallmark.


CN BRIDGE TO CAPE BRETON
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, in 1940 Canadian National made an agreement with the communities of Colchester County and Truro, Nova Scotia, to provide a highway bridge over the main rail line to Cape Breton in return for the communities giving up and closing off two streets.
For the last several years the residents of the area have seen the bridge disintegrate so much that the weight capacity has been reduced first from 10 tons to seven tons and now from seven tons to five tons. The fact is, the bridge should be condemned.
After years of stalling and delays CN finally agreed in writing on January 18, 1990, to build a new bridge with construction starting in the middle of May. It has not started. The residents of the area need this bridge replaced, with no more excuses, and they are demanding that CN keep with its original obligation made in 1940 and its written commitment made on January 18,1990, to replace this bridge now.


ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's environment is at risk due to uncertain political leadership. Today our environment slips on the cabinet agenda into a vacuum.
It has been my experience while Lucien Bouchard has been Minister of the Environment that an honest, decent, caring person was in office. His largest obstacle was the majority in cabinet who believe that Earth is flat.
On global warming, despite the consensus of the 1988 Toronto conference that a 20 per cent reduction in C02 emissions is needed and is achievable, this received no cabinet support. Despite the DPA report that Canada could save $150 billion in energy over the next decade while reducing C02 emissions by two-thirds, it was attacked by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The minister's own federal policy as of last week that Canada's emissions of C02 will be no higher in the year 2000 than they are now even came under attack from his own parliamentary secretary.

May 22, 1990
5. ft 31
What now will become of the Environmental Assessment and Review legislation? How watered down will it be? What of completing the national parks system this decade? What will be done? What of toughened legislation on marine pollution from pulp mills? Will they be weakened? What about eliminating CFCs or the review of James Bay, or the Oldman or the Rafferty-Alameda dams, or The Green Plan consultations?
Mr. Speaker, the creative loss of Minister Bouchard is substantial. He was adapting to the rigours and necessity of swimming against the tide of uninformed opinion. Environment lost an ally today.


TRIBUTE TO PIERRE ASSELIN AND NATHALIE VEZINA
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, on May 14, two young students from my riding who were studying for a bachelor's degree in history and political science at York University in Toronto, left Canada to pursue a course of studies at the University of Hanoi.
This rather unusual destination was chosen following an intensive course in Vietnamese at the South east Asian Studies Summer Institute of the University of Hawaii, during the summer of 1989.
The person who taught the course at the time was so impressed by these young Canadians that he offered to be their tutor in Hanoi.
Pierre Asselin and Nathalie Vezina are the first Quebecers and, in fact, the first Canadians to study in Vietnam.
Mr. Speaker, I invite hon. members to join me in wishing them every success in this adventurous and also quite difficult undertaking.


BILL C-21
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, a Decima research study recently released by the Minister of Employment and Immigration reveals that 66 per cent of Canadians support this government's plan to shift resources from UI benefits to effective job training.
The labour force development strategy is an important and valuable initiative of our government to develop a well trained and diversified workforce that can readily adapt to the challenges of tomorrow. Canadians are aware that without such training programs, Canada will fall behind other competitors in terms of a skilled workforce. This is a realization based on both common sense and economic reality.
Given the evident public support for Bill C-21 and Canada's urgent need to up-grade and enhance training opportunities, it is imperative that the Liberal members of the Senate listen to the Canadian public and pass this bill. It is only at that time that this government can proceed with the implementation of the labour force development strategy which will benefit all Canadians.


ANTI-SEMITISM
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked and disturbed at the news of the desecration of Jewish cemeteries in Quebec and Ontario, the last being in the city of Gloucester. The knocking over of tombstones is cowardly. The painting of Nazi symbols and anti-Semitic slogans is a disgraceful and dastardly act.

Canadians from both official language communities in this country, of different cultures and religions, wish to declare their solidarity with their brothers and sisters in the Jewish community and express their indignation in respect to these racist acts.

I ask the Prime Minister to assure Canadians that he will take positive action to promote unity and create an environment of harmony, tolerance and peace throughout the country.
Canadians should reflect on these events and ensure that never again such racist actions will never again occur. Never again.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not hear, each morning just before the
May 22, 1990

doors are opened, your prayer and that felicitous phrase "pour fructifier nos deliberations" and for Canada herself.
Never has that prayer been more apropos. My country has never been so threatened, and I do not know what to do. Where I can, I make speeches. I am shocked to find how many of our citizens either are not worried about what will happen if Meech fails or hope Quebec will leave.
My Canada is so special and so unique precisely because of its regional diversity. We cannot seriously want some Canadians to face an impossible choice.
Of course Quebec is a distinct society. Let us celebrate that and get on with the other constitutional changes we need to make government relevant in this country.
We are much more than the words on a document or the sum of our parts. Mr. Speaker, for what it is worth, I pray with you each day, whether I am here or somewhere else, pour fructifier les deliberations de nos leaders and for Canada. I hope we all will.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


ANTI-SEMITISM
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my feelings of outrage and deep dismay at the desecration of the Ottawa Jewish Community Cemetery in my constituency of Ottawa South last week.
The vandals who perpetrated this crime must be brought to justice under the law. They have brought violence to our community, causing many innocent families both grief and fear, and in the end every one of us has been victimized.
What is equally worrisome is the increase in incidents of hatred and intolerance against Jewish people worldwide. In this century, the world learned a terrible lesson about what can happen when hatred is permitted to overflow into the streets. We cannot indulge in passive acquiescence when this kind of directed racism occurs in our communities or elsewhere.
While we cannot make laws to change what is in people's minds and hearts, we can, as leaders and citizens, denounce in the strongest possible language such acts as those that occurred last week.
To the families that have been terrorized through the violation of the resting place of their loved ones, I wish to extend my deepest sympathy. I also affirm that I share their sense of having been violated and their determination to put an end to these senseless and hateful acts.


ICELANDIC STUDIES PROGRAM
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I had the honour and privilege of announcing a $300,000 grant in support of the chair of Icelandic language and literature at the University of Manitoba.
Financial support for the only Icelandic studies program in North America was approved by the hon. Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
This grant will go toward establishing a Canadian Icelandic studies program in conjunction with the university's existing chair in Icelandic language and literature.
The expansion of this chair demonstrates our commitment to make our cultural and linguistic diversity part of the academic life of this country.
I applaud the University of Manitoba for its efforts, and I congratulate my fellow Canadians of Icelandic heritage for their unselfish work in preserving our Icelandic language and culture.


THE MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, recent events in the occupied territories, and in Israel itself, must make it obvious to all but a shrinking core of hard-liners that an Israeli government must soon come into existence that is prepared to talk peace now with the PLO to bring an end to a situation which breeds unending violence and death and which can only lead to the spiritual destruction of Israel and all the good things it has been, and can continue to be if the Palestinian question could be dealt with.

May 22, 1990
Oral Questions
The policy established to deal with the intifada has failed. Closed universities and plastic bullets are not the answer.
Israel has to be willing to negotiate with the PLO, but other Arab countries have to do their share. Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with confidence in an atmosphere of hatred and an expanding arms race in the Middle East.
The Arab countries that got the Palestinians into the camps in the first place have a role to play. Unfortunately, they are not playing it. But like it or not, it is now Israeli troops in the West Bank and Gaza that are the oppressors, and oppression is antithetical to the genesis of Israel. The sooner we have an Israeli government which sees this and acts on it, the better off the whole world will be.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In light of what is said in the letter of resignation of the Minister of the Environment, I want to ask the Prime Minister if he continues to agree that the report of the special committee on the companion resolution provides a basis for a fair and reasonable solution to the current constitutional impasse?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think it provides the basis for what the members of the committee sought to give it, the basis for a reasonable discussion that might have the possibility of bringing the provinces to the constitutional table to see if the Meech Lake Accord might not then be fully accepted by all.
Senator Murray met with nine provincial premiers over the weekend. He will be meeting with Premier Bourassa this evening, after which he will make recommendations to me and to the government, which I will, no doubt, share at the earliest moment with all members of the House.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister just said, the Minister of
State (Federal- Provincial Relations) has now met most of our provincial premiers to find out whether it is feasible to call a First ministers' conference. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he could now inform the House of the results of the conversations Senator Murray has had so far and tell us whether all the conditions are there for calling this conference very shortly?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I believe the senator said publicly that he would make his recommendations following the meeting he will have with the Quebec premier this evening.
Considering the important reference the Leader of the Opposition made, I may point out that as Prime Minister of Canada, I negotiated the Meech Lake Accord because I absolutely wanted to bring Quebec back into the Canadian family. The Accord does that. I will never agree-I have said so on many occasions, and it has been said by other members on both sides of the House, especially by members from Quebec-I will never agree to let the terms of the Accord be diluted or its objective questioned. We want to ratify the Accord so that Quebec and Quebecers will truly feel they belong to Canada. We have never reneged on our support for the Accord, and we have no intention of repudiating our signature to the Accord. We have always found the Accord acceptable in its present, unamended form, and that position has not changed.
The Charest report proposes a basis for resumption of discussions by the governments to ensure that the Meech Lake Accord is ratified. The report provides the basis. It does not guarantee the results. I have always thought that all members of this House, by unanimously supporting the Charest committee, were telling the parties: We have now found a basis for negotiations. Go ahead and see if you can conclude an agreement, but not at the cost of weakening the Meech Lake Accord. Everyone has said Meech Lake must pass unchanged. That was my position, and I think it is the position of all members of this House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the constitutional situation is obviously very serious.
May 22, 1990



Would the Prime Minister not agree, therefore, that the time has come for him to be in direct contact with the provincial premiers to develop a basis for an early First Ministers' Conference which would bring about a satisfactory resolution of the current constitutional impasse?
In other words, certainly the work of Senator Murray is intended to be useful. But does the situation today not require the direct intervention of the Prime Minister on behalf of the House and the people of Canada in contact with the provincial premiers if we want to bring about an early resolution of the current constitutional impasse?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with all provincial premiers; some of them twice, some of them three and four times over the last number of days and throughout the weekend.
These various communications have been actively complemented by a personal visit from Senator Murray who has sought to ascertain the extent to which, pursuant to the committee recommendations, it might be possible for the partners to sit down and to reach an agreement which would resolve the constitutional impasse.
My hon. friend will remember that three years ago, when we signed the Meech Lake Accord, it was not a complicated proposition. All parties in the House agreed and twice voted in favour of a document that was a simple, dignified and straightforward welcome to Quebec back into the Canadian family. That is what we passed, that is what I signed, and that is what I want to have respected.
That having been said, in a three-year time frame, governments changed and the situations changed. What was a simple, straightforward invitation to Quebec to rejoin the family, found itself burdened down with add-ons and some such matters which we were ready to discuss, provided they did not vitiate, in any way, the fundamental provisions of the Meech Lake Accord. I think that was the general view of all members of the committee.
I continue to believe, notwithstanding the difficulties in which we find ourselves, that it is possible for reasonable Canadians to understand quickly and urgent-
Oral Questions
ly, the magnificence of the country that we have come to enjoy and love and to make sure that constructive compromises come forward to make sure we keep this nation strong and prosperous forever.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, who I assume is aware that Mr. Bourassa's cabinet is to meet later today to discuss a common position.
Has the Prime Minister of Canada been in touch with Premier Bourassa to give him the assurance that all three federal political parties in this House are unanimous in their desire to find a solution to the constitutional impasse? And more specifically, will he recall that the members of the Charest committee unanimously reaffirmed their acceptance of Quebec's five demands?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the answer to my hon. friend is yes. I have been in touch fairly regularly with the Quebec premier, the last time being, I believe, yesterday evening. I have always stressed the point that was made and quite properly raised by my hon. friend from Papineau-Saint-Michel. I have told him that the purpose of Meech Lake is to make Quebec a full-fledged partner of our federation, an active partner who would participate fully in the evolution of Canadian federalism. And that is because the Accord will make it possible for Quebecers to feel they are truly part of Canada and want to build their future on that basis.
Yesterday, I noticed one particular comment by Premier Bourassa, which is important in the context mentioned by the hon. member. On the weekend he said, in referring to Canada: "We are one of the most privileged countries in the world. That is why the majority of Quebecers would like to stay and prosper in this country and work together with the country's other groups and other communities".
This statement by the Quebec premier reflects his respect, admiration and deep affection for a united Canada. That is why we negotiated Meech Lake, and that is why we will have to make the following message unanimous: Quebec said yes to Canada, and now it is time for Canada to say yes to Quebec.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

May 22, 1990
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister realize that it is important for him at this time to play a considerable leadership role in explaining, and not just leave it to the chairman of the parliamentary committee, Mr. Charest, to explain the avenues which this committee explored? Is the Prime Minister himself ready to explain clearly that this report, which was accepted in good faith by opposition members, with the agreement of government members, only explores ways to solve the constitutional impasse and at no time did any of the members of this parliamentary committee want to require 23 concessions from Quebec, that the recommendations and suggestions contained in it are not to be taken as a whole but as a series of recommendations and suggestions to get Canada out of its constitutional impasse and that it is completely wrong to claim that they are 23 amendments, several of which change the essential conditions of the Meech Lake Accord? Is the Prime Minister prepared to defend the thesis that it is part of a compromise and that these suggestions would in no way lead Quebec to amend its five initial demands?


Martin Brian Mulroney: 
Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. I certainly agree with the Prime Minister's comments. I think he is saying that all of us in this House have a responsibility for the future of Canada and we take that responsibility seriously.
There is a serious situation in this country and I know that some people are despairing of the situation. But our role is to bring the country together. While we are all concerned about the events of the last few days, we cannot lose sight of the objective, which is to break the constitutional impasse.
I know that the Prime Minister has had Senator Murray speaking to the premiers of the provinces. Can the Prime Minister share with this House what the progress is to date and what specific plans this government has to ensure that we really can break the constitutional impasse?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that I am advised that the progress has not been substantial. Unfortunately there are some people-and I say this uncritically-who fail to understand the objective of the Meech Lake Accord.
The Meech Lake Accord was brought about by an agreement in 1986 of the premiers gathered in Edmonton who said that we cannot go on with Quebec not being a willing part of the Constitution and therefore we call upon the federal government to begin negotiations to seek a formula which will allow Quebec to become part of the constitutional deal, willingly, after which we will move to a second round.
There began a process which resulted in Meech Lake. The objective of Meech Lake at the time was not that anyone was seeking to exclude anyone's considerations. The specifically stated objective was that Quebec be
May 22, 1990

brought back into the Canadian family first and that any other matters be dealt with in a second round.
That was a very clear-cut and I think a very noble purpose. We achieved that. That Meech Lake Accord was honourable and, as Jack Pickersgill said, on terms so reasonable they will never come again in our lifetime. That Meech Lake Accord was endorsed twice by the House of Commons.
There were subsequently some add-ons which, in the minds of many Quebecers, have diminished the value of the Accord, and have changed it from its fundamental, noble objective. That is why there is growing frustration in the province of Quebec. They were willing to come on side and to say that by signing the Meech Lake Accord we willingly bind ourselves to Canada, to make Canada whole again, one Canada; we are proud to be Canadians; we sign with enthusiasm the Meech Lake Accord because it binds the nation together.
That is what the Meech Lake Accord is all about. It is now being diverted from that original, very noble purpose. We have to get it back on track so that Canadians understand what it is about. It is about the future of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Certainly no one denies what the purpose of the Meech Lake Accord was, and we certainly agree with that purpose. However, I would suggest that, owing to the lack of public consultation and public input, it has gone far beyond that, and this is why the Prime Minister called together a special committee to study a companion resolution.
[Translation\
The unanimous report tabled last week stressed again the importance of upholding Quebec's five principles.
In a few hours Senator Murray will have met with Canada's 10 provincial premiers.
Can the Prime Minister commit himself as early as tomorrow to share with the House and the whole country the contents of the propositions his minister made to all provincial Premiers?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Senator Murray has been seeking common grounds following the recommendations of the Charest report. He wants to know whether it is possible to clear the air so that the provinces and the first ministers might begin negotiations likely to lead to an honourable solution for Canada while maintaining the integrity of the Meech Lake Accord, without any changes.
That is his mission as he is crisscrossing the country. [English]
My hon. friend prefaced her question by referring to a lack of consultation. May I submit to her that perhaps that was not the reason. I do not think that anybody fully understood the implications of the new constitutional provisions in 1982 that provide a three-year period for constitutional amendments to be reviewed.
People knew, of course, that governments will change in a three-year period, but nobody in that room anticipated that subsequent governments would repudiate the signatures of their predecessors. Nobody anticipated that premiers would refuse to honour the signatures. I am not quarrelling with the process, I am just saying this was one of the new elements of the 1982 Constitution.
As I say, it was a very clear-cut undertaking by all Canadians which promoted joy across the countiy. I and many people thought that within a matter of months after the signing on June 3, 1987, all of the provinces would have ratified it and it would have passed the House of Commons.
The statement that French Canadians were making was that we want to be part of Canada. You have been asking us for 25 years what Quebec wants, we have just told you. We have acknowledged it, we have a document that is honourable for Canada. It is decent for our citizenship. It is a source of pride for us all. Let us sign it, let us pass it and let us get on with the job of building a better Canada.
That is what we thought would happen. Nobody anticipated that governments would change, signatures would be repudiated, and all of a sudden a very simple, straightforward document of unity would become a catch-all for everybody else's wish list as governments changed across the countiy.
That was not the intention of Meech Lake. That should not be the intention today. We should proceed with the objective of bringing Quebec solidly back into

May 22, 1990
Oral Questions
Canada so we will have one powerful country and then go on with these other questions.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no one in this party, and I am sure no one in this House, who does not share the objective and the importance of having Quebec in the Constitution. However, whatever happened over the last three years, whatever misunderstandings or miscalculations there were, we have to deal with what is happening now.
We know that Senator Murray has been consulting with the premiers, that he will do so with Mr. Bourassa tonight and that he has shared some kind of text with them. Every day that that is left unclear, the anxiety over the future of this country increases.
Following Senator Murray's meeting with Premier Bourassa this evening, will the Prime Minister make a commitment to share with this House and with Canadians the exact state of the negotiations, including the contents of the wording? Can he make a commitment to share that with this House and Canadians tomorrow after the negotiations have concluded?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to share with my hon. friend and the members of the House any information that is given to me by Senator Murray which I feel could be constructively imparted.
As well, I do have an obligation to consult with very strong and, if I may say, very loyal and courageous supporters of Meech Lake, from the Premier of Nova Scotia to the Premier of Ontario and the Premier of Alberta, people of all political persuasions who have done so much. I plan to keep all people informed including, of course, members of the House of Commons.
I would just observe, in terms of the realities, that what happened really was that a separatist government arrived in 1981 with a shopping list of requests for the federal government which were clearly unacceptable. Most people know that. A federalist government was elected in the province of Quebec in 1985 with a list of five requests, not one of which broke new ground, not
one of which had not been heard of before or debated for years in Canada. I can remember these debates taking place at Laval University 30 years ago on each and every one of those topics. There is nothing new under the sun.
Mr. Bourassa, a Canadian federalist, came forward with a list of five specific requests. They were debated for almost a year and a half. They were negotiated and we had an arrangement. As I say, it had the advantage of responding directly to a challenge of Canadian unity. It was clear cut and it did not close the door to the other matters that were raised legitimately for a second round. It was clearly stated in the Meech Lake Accord that there will be a second round and that the first item on the second round will be Senate reform. It was devised with this in mind.
That was the statement by Quebecers and this should never be forgotten. I began hanging around the National Assembly in 1960 and I have watched every Premier of Quebec veiy, very carefully. On June 3, 1987 Premier Bourassa went to the Conference Centre and I want to tell you that it had been a long time since I had heard a premier of the province of Quebec say: "This is a statement of love in Canada. I am proud to be a Canadian. This is a great day for Canada".
That was three years ago and we still have not concluded the deal today. It is time for Canada to say yes to these reasonable conditions of the province of Quebec.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation j


TRANSPORT
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. This morning, Quebec truckers are blocking roads around Montreal to react to the disastrous impact of deregulation and free trade deals arranged by this government.
Already half a dozen Ontario trucking firms have moved to the United States. A Manitoba survey indicates that only 12 of the 84 provincial trucking companies will still be in business in four or five years. Being responsible for this major crisis, what measures does the Minister of
May 22, 1990

Transport intend to take to protect this essential Canadian industry?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would not be so quick to blame this on free trade. My hon. friend might, but I would not.
I think he will find that the dispute is between the various provinces and states along the border. That is where the dispute is. In fact, I had already taken the initiative to ask for a meeting with the Canadian Trucking Association some two or three weeks ago. The meeting will be this week. I intend to explore avenues wherein we can try to assist the trucking business in its efforts.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the minister says this has nothing to do with free trade but, as the president of the Ontario Trucking Association has said, the level playing field is tilted 20 per cent toward the United States on taxes, on wage costs, on capital investment and on a whole series of measures that give them a substantial advantage, and this government is doing nothing to respond.
What will this government do to respond to the thousands of jobs that are being lost in the trucking industry and the movement of hundreds of trucking firms to the United States in order to protect a fundamental building-block in this country, our transportation system? This government has a responsibility. These are the government's policies. It must do something about it. When are we going to get the government's policy reaction?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, broad as the free trade agreement was, it did not contain anything about taxes and labour costs, and I think my hon. friend knows that.
We have a very solid transportation system in this country. From time to time there are adjustments that have to be made. I dismiss out of hand my hon. friend's suggestion that there are thousands and thousands of jobs being lost. That is simply not the case and he knows it.
Oral Questions ANTI-SEMITISM


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Over the past several days there have been three distinct acts of desecration and vandalism to cemeteries of Canadians of the Jewish faith. Over the same period other similar acts of desecration have occurred in Europe. These acts are an affront to all Canadians and manifest an intolerance and a hate that is unacceptable in our society.
Will the Solicitor General tell the House what steps he will take to assist local law enforcement to respond to these shameful acts?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and all members of this House have condemned this abhorrent and cowardly act. It regretfully reminds all of us that racism and intolerance are just beneath the surface of our society. It is an outrage that offends and wounds all of us and I call on all Canadians to combat racism and bigotry wherever it is found.
We have very actively been moving our program into the race relations and cross-cultural understanding area. We have been bringing forward hundreds of initiatives to build partnerships so that every aspect of Canadian society can fully respond to our diversity and, once and for all, provide all our citizens with the equal opportunity, access and understanding that our citizenship demands.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are seeking to know more about the ignorance that lies behind these acts. The RCMP and the Solicitor General have access to police intelligence data which may be of assistance, both in apprehending those who committed the acts of desecration and in exposing any common links that may exist between these crimes.
Will the Solicitor General undertake to ensure the co-ordination and delivery of relevant federal police intelligence information to the local police forces involved?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, obviously the RCMP has communicated with the appropriate police authorities where these

May 22, 1990
Oral Questions
events occurred. Of course, we will continue to monitor and give whatever help and assistance we can.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of Sir David Wilson, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Hong Kong.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Mr. Ali Ahmed Al-Khader, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Yemen Arab Republic.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. David Gilbert, Minister of Works, Transportation and Services of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. In January, Canadian officials were asked about free trade with Mexico and said: "Mexico's level of development is so different from that of their northern neighbours that it is not realistic".
Now the minister is quoted as telling reporters that he is considering joining the U.S.-Mexico trade talks. Is the minister in fact considering such a step? If that is the case, could he tell us just one single benefit that there would be to Canada from such a stupid, ridiculous act?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the two countries involved, United States and Mexico, have not yet decided whether they are going to discuss this subject and the hon. gentleman has gone crazy that they even deign to discuss with one another whether they want to see if there should be a free trade arrangement.
Nor, Mr. Speaker, have we made any decision to join the non-existent talks, because you cannot join something that is non-existent.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, with his usual skill the minister has avoided answering the question. The fact is that these talks are being very actively taken forward by the United States and Mexico. The question is not whether we support those talks, it is whether we become part of that three-way process.
In the face of the 45,000 manufacturing jobs that we lost just last month, is the minister prepared to put more jobs at risk in Canada by putting us into low wage competition with the people of Mexico without discussion in this country?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, if the United States and Mexico choose to have discussions on a freer trade arrangement between Mexico and the United States, Canada will have a direct interest in such discussions.
Since over 70 per cent of all Canadian exports go to the United States market and something in the order of 65 per cent of all Mexican exports go to the United States market, we will have to make a decision, if there are such discussions, as to whether we want to be involved with the discussions so that we will know exactly what is being discussed and what the possibilities are because obviously the results will be important to Canada. That is a decision that the government has not yet made.
I can tell the House, as our Prime Minister did when he heard of the possibility of these discussions, that we very much admire the way the Mexican government is tackling the problems of Mexico. It is opening up Mexico to competition and imports, improving its exports and has joined the GATT. It has taken these steps in recent years to assist the 85 million Mexicans.
Why anybody in this House should be so against Mexicans trying to improve their lot by joining the world trading system and by improving their trade and prospects with Canada and the United States is beyond us. We want free trade everywhere in the world. We believe that Mexico should be encouraged on the course it is now on.
May 22, 1990


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We are now in the second year of Canada's two-year term on the Security Council, yet this government has failed to introduce any specific initiatives to further the peace process in the Middle East.
With the current two-day session of the Security Council, what direction has the minister given to the ambassador to the United Nations to help break the impasse in the peace negotiations and encourage movement toward an international peace conference to resolve this serious conflict?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have encouraged our ambassador and representative to the United Nations in this case, as in others, to use every means available to us to explore whether there is a useful role the Security Council might play in dealing with circumstances that become every day more dangerous.
Those discussions are going on. If there is a useful initiative which the Security Council can take, the Government of Canada will encourage that it be taken.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, we all heard the reports of a dramatic increase in violence in the Middle East, particularly the occupied territories. What representations has the minister made on behalf of the Government of Canada to the Government of Israel on these recent events? Second, is the current situation in the Middle East on the agenda for the respective visits of the President of the Soviet Union and the Secretary General of the United Nations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, at my instruction the Canadian Ambassador to Israel spoke today to Israeli government authorities to express Canada's shock and great concern at the increasing violence in the Middle East and to urge the Government of Israel to take appropriate steps to try to restrain the sources and incidents of that violence.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Incidents?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who speaks for the Liberal Party on questions relating to the Middle East. I am answering a question that has
Oral Questions
been put to me by the spokesman. If there is to be some freelancing done by the hon. member, let him stand up in his place and do it. Let him not pose questions from his seat.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the right hon. minister could conclude his answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the second part of the question, yes, those matters will be discussed with Mr. Gorbachev and with the Secretary General of the United Nations during their respective visits to Canada.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. East coast lobster fishermen are facing a disastrous season this year, in part because of the uncertainty caused by U.S. legislation restricting the importation of Canadian lobsters.
Last fall the minister promised an early resolution of this uncertainty through the free trade panel, yet this panel report, which was due on May 15, was delayed until today, and now we learn it has been delayed once again.
Can the minister tell this House why the report of the panel has been delayed for a second time?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, the purpose, of course, of these procedures under the free trade agreement is to try to reach a settlement of any disputes that might arise. The panel report has been delayed until Friday at the request of Mrs. Hills and myself because we want to give the industry in both countries a chance to consider some arrangement that they might both find acceptable and that might deal with the problem. That is why the panel report is delayed until this coming Friday.
The process itself has, however, been remarkably quick. Under the GATT it probably would have been another year before we had a result such as the panel report will give us at the end of the week.
[Stage Direction]
May 22, 1990
Point of Order
Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. On December 14, he told this House that he considered the U.S. lobster legislation to be a trade distorting measure and promised to pursue this vigorously through the free trade panel. He said he thought we had a very strong case. Yet earlier this month we learned that the preliminary report seemed to be accepting the premises of the U.S. law.
In light of his meeting with the U.S. trade representative, Carla Hills, can the minister assure this House that the report of the panel will confirm this view and lead to the withdrawal of this trade distorting legislation, or are the lobster fishermen on the east coast now about to be abandoned just like the fish plant workers on the west coast were abandoned last fall?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric of the hon. gentleman's question is vastly exaggerated. Nobody has been abandoned.
Obviously this is something which could involve several different answers to the question, or the matter would not have gone to a panel for dispute resolution.
Were I the sole panellist there is no doubt what the decision would have been. However there were five panellists. The majority of them has reached a certain conclusion, as we will see next Friday and as the interim report indicated.
I can only say that no matter what conclusion the majority reached, we are hoping that the industries in both countries will agree on a settlement that they can both live with and which will be in the interests of both our countries as well as the lobster fishermen in both our countries. That is what we are trying to achieve.


Mr. Speaker:: That concludes Question Period.
I will recognize the hon. member for Saint-Denis on a question of privilege and then the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.


PRIVILEGE
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs from time to time seems to forget that he is an ex-Prime Minister and my Secretary of State for External Affairs. He likes to play politics.
All I can say to him in response to his provocation is that I would be more than delighted to debate the question of the Middle East with him any time, at any hour, anywhere he wants.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I call on the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, the hon. member for Skeena has a very quick point of order to correct the record.


POINT OF ORDER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order.
I erred in referring to the hon. member for Brandon- Souris earlier during Question Period. In fact I meant to refer to the hon. member for Calgary Southeast as can be confirmed by looking at page 11604 of Hansard.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I entered politics late in life, under trying circumstances, but with the best of intentions. Two reasons prompted me to go into the lion's den. The first is the attraction of the beau risque, the worthy risk of co-operating with Mr. Mulroney. The second, Mr. Mulroney himself. In Sept-Iles, on a warm day in August 1984, he made the solemn commitment to bring this country together. I knew as well that he had met this commitment by having all provincial premiers sign the 1987 Accord which would enable Quebec to endorse formally the 1982 patriation.
May 22, 1990

The objective was clear: join the government team to help the Prime Minister obtain the ratification on which the implementation of the Accord was dependent.
It was with some hesitancy that I finally accepted the accord. Indeed, as early as 1982,1 thought that some day English Canada would pay dearly to repair the breach of faith of 1982 and the historical harm done to its own reputation. When I first read the accord I had the impression that Quebec had made light of the fact that it had been humiliated and that it was justifiably indignant. Still, convinced that nothing better could be achieved, I finally concluded that we had to pull ourselves out of the ghetto and prostration where Pierre Trudeau's arrogant deception had confined us. I said to myself that we had to take that opportunity to turn the page on the bitterness of the recent past and, with Brian Mulroney, begin to write a glorious chapter highlighted by acts of faith, tolerant gestures and open dialogues.
Mr. Speaker, there are those who would say that these were mere words and that words do not mean much in politics. But it so happens that I come from a family, a background and a region where words are heart-felt. It is not mere chance if, for instance, the Prime Minister so often uses the word generosity. It is because, basically, he is a generous man.
I also thought that, if anything, the signature of the provincial premiers was sacred. Therefore, I had no reason to suspect that the Meech Lake Accord, bearing the signatures of the Premiers of New Brunswick, Manitoba and Newfoundland, would be dishonoured. There is something deeply shocking in the idea that the very people who chose not to honour the signatures of their predecessors are now trying to make Quebec bear the onus of their own guilt. The sharpest of the three, Mr. McKenna, even reminds me of the wolf that calls out for help to protect the sheepfold it has just ransacked.


Mr. Robichaud:: Now, now, he is not here to defend himself.


Lucien Bouchard: All these gentlemen know full well that the negotiations did take place, that the compromises have been made and that Quebec came out of it bloodless after setting the extreme limit of its concessions precisely where proudness loses its meaning.
Point of Order
This is why any request for more concessions is an insult to its sense of honour. The report of the parliamentary committee advocates belittling the distinctiveness of Quebec's society by enshrining, in the same provision, the equality of New Brunswick's English- and French-speaking communities. I also have in mind the still greater dilution of the Accord as a result of the suggestion that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms be jointly applied. And I am concerned about the recommendation aimed at eliminating the unanimity rule to implement Senate reform, and about all the dangers which the ambiguous formula of a "regional approval" mechanism entails for Quebec's veto.
Above all, I consider as altogether unacceptable the recommendation to give Parliament and the federal government the role of promoting and not just preserving the linguistic duality, as stated in the Meech Lake Accord.
That is why I must speak out about the government's strategy to make this report the basis for discussions to call a First Ministers' Conference. I do not doubt Mr. Mulroney's intentions but by conferring this status on the report, the government is, in fact, forming an alliance with the very parties that would impose humiliating terms on Quebec. This report accredits practically every attempt by enemies of Meech Lake to dilute the Accord and deal a fatal blow to Quebec. The report should never have existed. I disapprove of it utterly, and I see no alternative but to leave this government-be it with feelings of pain and anguish-as well as the Conservative caucus, to sit as an independent member.
I implore the Premier of Quebec to avoid falling into the trap that has now been set. I ask him here and now to spare Quebecers one more insult, one more blow to their pride, one more ostracism. I can honestly say that for two years I have constantly supported Mr. Bourassa in his efforts to protect the integrity of the Accord. Today, I say to him that if he refuses to attend a conference where this committee's report will be on the agenda, he will have not only my support but that of all Quebecers, from Montmagny to Rouyn, from Quebec City to Montreal, from Roberval to Baie-Comeau.
I urge Mr. Bourassa to accept as a framework for discussion only the resolution that was passed by the National Assembly in a great move towards unity, a prelude to the new surge of energy that will put Quebec in charge of its own destiny. Let clever politicians, those arsonists disguised as firemen, those sorcerer's appren-

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
tices, come and tell us here in Ottawa, before the people, before past, present and future generations, whether or not they repudiate signatures that were freely given, at that time of grace in the national life of this country, at sunrise on June 3, 1987.
Mr. Speaker, enough of this hypocrisy! Let the real culprits take off their masks, or if they cannot stand the light of day or fear the judgment that history will pass on them, let them be inspired by Macdonald and Cartier and look to the future, our children's future, and then reach out to the fraternal hand Quebec still offers, perhaps for the last time.
Mr. Speaker, with your leave, in concluding I would like to say to all my colleagues, to the Conservative ministers and members, that it was an honour to serve with them. Ties of solidarity and friendship were forged. I told the Prime Minister in my letter and at our meeting yesterday how much I appreciated him. I wish them all good luck and assure them of my support for the policies I had the privilege of developing with them.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, I well understand that some hon. members would like to speak on the statement made by our hon. colleague, but the Standing Orders do not provide for it. Therefore, we shall resume debate on the order of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will now move to Motion No. 24.


Dawn Black: moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-43 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 5 to 24
at page 1 and lines 1 to 16 at page 2 and substituting the following
therefor:
"code are repealed."
She said: Mr. Speaker, my amendment would turn Bill C-43 into a simple housekeeping bill rather than an act to recriminalize abortion.
Criminalization of abortion is wrong. It does not prevent unwanted pregnancies, which is why women and girls seek abortion. It does not ensure access to abortion services.
This bill is somewhat like making food illegal and then saying that the government will ensure that everyone has access to a grocery store. It makes no sense.
It does not stop legal cases or strike down provincial abortion laws. It seems to create another legal tool to base legal cases on. Provincial laws will not just disappear as a result of this bill, as some would have us believe. As both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of National Health and Welfare are so fond of saying, health is under provincial jurisdiction. The provinces can enact laws regulating medical services at any time they want. These constitutional powers are in no way affected by the presence or absence of a federal criminal law, as constitutional lawyers across this country have told us.
Criminalization does not fill a regulatory vacuum. The Canadian Medical Association and provincial colleges of physicians and surgeons already have guidelines concerning abortion. It is illegal to practise medicine in Canada without a licence.
We have been without a law now since 1988. For more than two years there has been no criminal law on abortion. Criminalization will not make this issue go away. We know that. We have listened to the people on both sides of this issue. It is not an issue in society that is simply going to disappear quietly because there is new criminal law passed.
There will be court challenges. There will be court challenges within a year if this measure passes. All it takes is someone like Barbara Dodd who changed her mind. She could lay an information saying that she knew, and that her doctor knew, that she was not coming in and asking for an abortion because of health reasons.
May 22, 1990

Some pro-choice Tories in this House have turned a blind eye to the ramifications of this bill. They think that hardly anyone is going to be charged, or they have said that it is unlikely that people will be charged, doctors or women.
We do not have criminal laws so that no one will be charged. A criminal law is a serious matter in this country. Henry Morgentaler spent time in jail for breaking the last abortion law. We have heard already from doctors who say that they will openly disobey this law because it is an insulting and a hypocritical law. They say that they will perform abortions because the woman wants one for her own reasons, not for reasons acceptable only to the state.
It is surprising to me to see pro-choice Tories turn a blind eye and to support state control of women's bodies and women's private decisions. The Tories are the ones that go on ad nauseam in this House about privacy, about deregulation, and about as little government control as possible. Yet this is the very same government that wants to dictate to women on their reproductive health.
This bill is wrong. Why do members on the other side feel that they must compromise their values and their principles on this bill?
This is supposed to be, we are told, a free vote. Members did not seem to compromise when it came to the issue of capital punishment.
There is no reason for this bill. The country has operated fine for the last two years without a criminal law on abortion.
The amendment I propose will wipe out the bill leaving only one sentence stating: "Section 287 and 288 of the Criminal Code are repealed". This will have the effect of getting rid of the sections of the Criminal Code that were invalidated by the 1988 criminal court decision in Morgentaler, formerly sections 251 and 252.
If my amendment passes, that will be the whole bill. There will be no recriminalization of abortion.
Anyone in this House who calls themself pro-choice must vote for this amendment. This is the only prochoice amendment proposed to this House. It does not escape notice that all the amendments proposed this morning were proposed by men, and that all of those
Government Orders
amendments would make the legislation even more regressive, even more restrictive to women, than the present bill.
The Liberals and the Tories have proposed only amendments that would make this bill far more restrictive. I know these amendments have come from a minority of Liberals and a minority of Tories.
Thus I appeal to the pro-choice Conservatives and to the pro-choice Liberals in this House to vote for this amendment. Do not let those severe anti-choice amendments stand as your parties' position on reproductive choice.
The amendment I propose is for all pro-choice members in the House of Commons. It is for people in this House who value the integrity of Canadian women and who respect the decisions of Canadian women.
I appeal to all members to put aside whatever party pressures there may be, and vote for this amendment, Motion No. 24. There is a chance for pro-choice members to speak out and show all Canadians that they do have integrity, that they do care about women, that they will vote for their conscience.
I would like to see the Minister of Justice, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women and the Minister of Employment and Immigration vote for this amendment. It is the only pro-choice position. Just because they are being coerced by the Prime Minister and by their paramount commitment to their own political careers to vote against their consciences on the bill, does not mean that they should vote against the amendment.
This is a way out. If this amendment passes, the House will have spoken. The House will have voted against the ineffective approach to the abortion issue for an effective and a compassionate approach.
In this situation criminal legislation is not the answer. Social policy is the answer. Family planning education, research into safe and effective contraception, support for pregnant women and their families are the truly effective approaches to this question.
It is too late now to change peoples' minds about their own philosophical position. It is going to be impossible for me to convince the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to vote for my amendment.

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
I appeal to all of you who share my philosophical point of view, who do care about women, who do believe in reproductive freedom, to vote, for the only pro-choice amendment before the House of Commons and cast your ballot for choice. Cast your ballot for the integrity of Canadian women.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I will address some of the points that have been made by the last speaker in the third reading debate.
I rise today in response to the motions put forward for debate at the report stage of Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion.
[Translation\
You already know, Mr. Speaker, that the provisions contained in Bill C-43 are the result of a very long process, of a careful examination of the question, of many consultations and months of study and deliberation to answer this difficult question in the most just and moderate way.

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.
Clearly, abortion is one of the most divisive issues facing Canadians today.
I am strongly of the opinion that Bill C-43 reflects a balance of the views of the Canadian people in a way that will be acceptable to the majority of Canadians.
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.
It is not our role as parliamentarians simply to continue to articulate a particular side of the debate. We must act in the interests of all Canadians.

The highest court in the land recognized this responsibility by stating in the Morgentaler affair that its role was to examine the laws to determine whether the legislative balance of particular interests complies with constitutional guarantees but that it is first and foremost Parliament's task to achieve this balance.
Mr. Speaker, we have taken time and effort to reach an acceptable solution on abortion, in the best interest of Canadians, while respecting and reflecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
For many people, it was necessary to seek an accommodation and to recognize that in order to find a basis of agreement on this difficult question, and I emphasize, a basis of agreement that respects differing opinions and constitutional guarantees, we must set aside our personal opinions and act in the interest of Canadians whom we represent.

The legislative committee which examined Bill C-43 and has now presented its report to this House clearly accepted this challenge.
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.
The legislative committee has approved Bill C-43 without amendment, and I commend its members for the thoughtful considerations they have given to their examination of the proposed legislation.
As parliamentarians we must assume our responsibilities to bridge the gap created by the divergent views which we and our fellow Canadians hold with respect to the matter of abortion.
Bill C-43 is our best effort at bringing forward a law that will withstand a constitutional challenge. It is a balance that addresses the protection of a woman's security of the person, as identified in the Morgentaler judgment, while providing recognition to society's interest in the protection of the foetus.
May 22, 1990



If we change the bill by accepting any of the proposed amendments in the motions presented, I am quite afraid that the fragile balance we reached in the bill will be broken and that we will pass an unconstitutional law or even go against the objective sought.

The motions to amend Bill C-43 which are before the House reflect the strong divergent views held by the partisans on either side of the abortion debate. Obviously, this law will not satisfy these members. Only absolute positions would do that.
It would be my hope that these members 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 manner that is understandable, workable and fair.

Without going into the details of each motion before you, I wish to make the following general remarks on the effect of the various proposals to be debated.

You have several motions before you, Mr. Speaker, which, if adopted, would serve to remove or restrict the definition of health or the standard of health required by the proposed legislation, or require exceptional medical circumstances in order for an abortion to be induced.
The imposition of a "serious threat to health" or that a requirement that a woman be in a life-threatening situation in order for an abortion to be performed at any stage in a woman's pregnancy, would be contrary to the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Canada in Morgentaler, and thereby jeopardize the constitutional validity of Bill C-43.
In addition, the definition of "health" in this bill explicitly refers to psychological health in order to comply with the ruling in Morgentaler.
Removal of this ground would, therefore, increase the risk that there would be a successful challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Increasing the severity of punishment for inducing an abortion outside the exemptions permitted by law from
Government Orders
two to 20 years would have an adverse effect on the constitutionality of the bill, as would attempting to regulate the pre-implantation stage by abortion legislation.

In Bill C-43, we are trying to respect both the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Morgentaler case and society's interest in protecting the foetus.
Any amendment to the bill that 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.

I have policy concerns as well with the motions that would remove the legal protection afforded nurses or other medical staff who assist a doctor in the performance of an abortion or would suggest that a doctor's opinion based on the generally accepted standards of the medical profession would not normally be based on scientific knowledge.
Two of the motions proposed would serve to defeat completely the purpose of Bill C-43-first, by allowing abortions to be induced by any person provided the woman consents; and, second, by repealing the current abortion provisions in the Criminal Code without enacting any replacement.
To suggest that the bill be withdrawn in its entirety does not recognize our responsibility as members of Parliament to bring forward a law that is constitutionally valid and addresses the protection of a woman's security of the person, while providing recognition to society's interest in the protection of the foetus.
I have stated repeatedly that it is our duty to attempt to strike a balance of interests that reflects the various views and interests of our constitutents and respects constitutional guarantees.

I have tremendous respect for the process by which Bill C-43 was drawn up.
Because of the fragile balance achieved in the bill, people of opposing opinions support it.

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
I believe that it is extremely important to continue to respect the balance that Bill C-43 reflects.
That is why I am afraid that if any of the motions before the House pass, Bill C-43 may not be adopted on third reading.

Any of the proposed amendments, if adopted, would likely upset the political balance sufficiently to alienate support for Bill C-43 from those holding opposing views.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the abortion issue must be settled by Parliament and not just by the courts.
It is up to us to deal with this issue.
That is why Bill C-43 was presented and why hon. members must support it.

I therefore strongly recommend that we support Bill C-43 by voting against all of the amendments proposed in the motions before this House. In this manner, we will ensure the successful passing of this bill into law.
We will thereby fulfil our responsibilities as parliamentarians in having introduced an abortion law which provides safeguards for Canadian women and reflects society's interest in the protection of the foetus, while at the same time respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being in the House. Actually I should have spoken before the minister, but I am glad I had a chance to listen to her speech. I would like to say first of all that the Official Opposition has recognized the right of its members to a free vote on this difficult and fundamental issue.
Some very strong views are held on this side as well, and I would also like to take a few minutes, at the report stage of this bill, to explain my own.
Despite the respect just shown by the minister for the process used before the committee that considered this bill, I think we should point out that the committee ignored, and the government ignored and refused to
consider, the tenor of the testimony brought before this committee.
I believe the government decided from the outset that it would refuse to accept any amendments and would reject all testimony to the effect that this is a bill that contains many problems. There are problems with the principle and with the moral perspective. This is not a bill that takes an honest approach to the position it reflects. That is basically what should be said.
I said I have my own position, and it is that the Supreme Court of Canada was right to suggest that first of all, we should respect the right of women to chose freely to have or want to have an abortion.
In this respect, the government's bill does not work because in the framework of this bill, there is no provision for having access to the services of a doctor to have an abortion in the first stages of pregnancy. Before the woman has access to medical services, she must first have the permission of those services. To me, this goes against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I have asked the government to make a referral to the Supreme Court of Canada to find out whether the legislation is constitutional. I have my doubts, and practically all the witnesses we heard said the same.
Mr. Speaker, the problem I have with the situation in which we are in now is that pretty soon we will have a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada on whether or not the bill is legal. Unfortunately, this will happen when we have a pregnant woman who has problems, as in the case of Chantal Daigle and in so many other cases in this country. That is how we are going to determine whether or not this bill is constitutional.
I am very sorry that the government, possibly because of male chauvinist leanings, decided to ignore legal advice and go ahead with some very questionable legislation. In my opinion, in line with the views of the Supreme Court of Canada, in the later stages of pregnancy there are interests respecting the foetus that must be recognized and which we were asked to recognize. Some of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada expected our committee would hear witnesses that would expound their ideas on the development of a human being that, during pregnancy, becomes a being worthy of legal recognition. And then, in the context of the testimony received, the committee would be able to establish a system that would strike a balance between



May 22, 1990

the very important and legitimate interests of the woman and the emerging interests of the foetus.
This the government refused to do, and the Speaker felt that my amendment to establish this system was out of order. I accept that decision.
As I said, I accept that it was out of order but I regret very much that on the principle, the government did not decide to listen to the witnesses and to create a system recognizing the rights of women, even though some of those witnesses did not want to admit that at a certain point in the pregnancy, other interests come into play but for me-I insist-and for the Supreme Court of Canada, the interests of the foetus deserve to be recognized and protected as much as those of the mother.
Mr. Speaker, we know, as the minister just suggested, that all the amendments before us must be rejected. I deplore it. I will vote against this legislation which neither respects the right to life nor recognizes the rights of women.
Consequently, I personnally think that it is an hypocritical piece of legislation that does not deserve to be adopted by the Parliament of Canada.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, this is for me both a duty and a pleasure to debate today in this House this abortion bill. This is a very emotional issue for all hon. members and it forms an integral part of the legal and moral approach of all Canadian men and women in general and my Quebec-Est constituents in particular.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, a great many things were said, a great many opinions were expressed both individually and collectively, and sometimes emotion wins over reason; that is why I felt further thought needed to be given to the matter. Finally, I have come to the realization that, fortunately or not the greater the information gathered from all sources, the harder it became for me to make up my mind.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, I feel I must share with you all the result of this reflection which, in my humble opinion, can only serve to enhance the various sentiments expressed to date. Here are some ideas:
Government Orders
According to Ronald D. Elving, "abortion is now and will remain for many years a politician's nightmare". There is nobody in the House, I believe, who disagrees with this opinion, and it could be said also that this is a societal concern.
Unanimity exists only on two points, namely, that first the abortion issue is highly charged with emotion and second that opinions are highly polarized.
Mr. Speaker, can we reasonably hope to achieve soon a consensus which could make the legislation acceptable to the majority?
I would rather hope so. As Paul Valery wrote: "There always comes a day when a clever man can define in three words the essential of a doctrine which all until then had deemed absolutely incomprehensible".
Of course, I do not think I am such a man, but anybody can seek to hasten the coming of this liberator. The three key elements are perhaps the distinctions on which we should insist.
The first is the basic distinction between the legal and the moral aspects of the matter.
Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult for a layman to view an issue the way the legislator does. Why?
Because when considering an issue, the legislator must keep in mind the good of society, the need to preserve law and order in a society while seeking the common good which dissensions can only jeopardize.
A legislator who is against abortion could vote in favour of a legislation which makes it possible, while not authorizing it, if he felt that it were necessary for the good of society.
A second basic distinction is that between objective and subjective morality.
Objective morality considers things in the abstract dealing with their principles and not their application. It looks at abortion from a general viewpoint without considering the individual case which a real human being confronted with the realities of life has to deal with.
The way a person deals with the abortion issue as such depends on how he or she sees the foetus. There is not much of a consensus on this.

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
For some people the foetus is a part of the mother's body, for others it is just a group of cells, for some it acquires value over time, for others still it is a human being from the moment of conception.
The moral judgment on abortion varies. For some it is as simple as having a tooth pulled, for others it is murder.
Under the strictest moral, meaning Catholic moral, the foetus is a human being from the moment of conception, it has the strict right to live and the state must uphold that right. Therefore it may never be killed directly even to save the mother's life. Under this moral the end never justifies the means. Abortion therefore can never be a means to the best of ends.
We seem to be in an impasse, Mr. Speaker, but when certain Catholic theologians want to apply the official thought to real life, complex as it is in most instances, they do make exceptions by introducing very significant nuances, for these people make a distinction between "doctrinal" and "pastoral" speech. It is not unlike the well-known distinction made by legal experts between principles and their application.
Some of these theologians accept even direct abortion in certain cases, say to save the mother's life, in cases of rape, and others. Others find situations where abortion is the least of two evils. Still others make distinctions: do not allow, but do not penalize; do not allow, but make it possible, and so on.
Even more than moralists, legislators will have to take these compromises into consideration. Above all they will have to take into account the personal conscience that each individual looks upon as the rule which guides one's conduct. Keep in mind that the moral which says one is never allowed to kill a foetus also says one is never allowed to act against one's own conscience. Pro-lifers have no use whatsoever for the subjective moral and the key role which conscience must play in human life.
When legislators are on the verge of passing legislation on abortion they ought not to forget subjective morality. The more numerous the various opinions on this issue, the greater the role of personal conscience. They ought not to forget that there are Canadians who
are not at all convinced that the foetus is a human being or even a living being from the moment of conception, and that destroying it is always a murder.
Mr. Speaker, a major question which my fellow citizens of Quebec-Est often put to me is this: Should the government legislate in this matter? If it did not, the abortion issue would be like so many others which are not covered by law. These problems relate to morals and personal conscience.
Would abortion be more frequent if there were no law? That is a moot point. Apparently the number of murders did not go up after the death penalty was abolished. An abortion is not the kind of operation which a woman is happy to undergo. As the doctors have pointed out in their brief, the procedure is hard on everyone involved. The best protection for the foetus' right to life is built in the human heart by moral values and not by a law, however wise and strict it may be.
So, if Bill C-43 does not pass, it should not be seen as a tragedy.
On what criteria then should the drafting of a law be based in order to be wise will you ask me, Mr. Speaker? I will answer that the wise legislator must remember that he is not a moralist, in spite of his moral convictions. He must not try to impose his personal convictions on everybody through a law. It is hard, however, not to forbid others what one forbids oneself.
The wise legislator must take into account the society for whom he is legislating and the era we live in. In a hundred years from now, things might be different. Our ways may have changed and some of our existing laws may then seem quite inhuman.
The wise legislator must also take into account subjective moral values as well as individual conscience, especially considering we are dealing with a field in which there is no unanimity within a given set of values.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that not so long ago, the Supreme Court required two conditions to be met for fear of being brought back before the courts and having to go through the whole process all over again.
The first constraint was that it considered section 251 of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional because women had to go through the too time-consuming
May 22, 1990

process of the therapeutic abortion committee comprised of three doctors who had to give their "consent".
And as for the second constraint, the Chief Justice said that it was unacceptable to force a woman under threat of criminal penalty to carry a foetus to term.
I have heard some people tell me that abortion is nothing more nor less than a medical procedure. But, Mr. Speaker, considering abortion as a medical procedure does not mean that it is not at the same time and more fundamentally a moral act, as is every action taken deliberately or voluntarily and freely. If abortion is a medical procedure, Bill C-43 makes it a crime for anyone but a physician to perform an abortion. That is as it should be.
However, when the Canadian Medical Association maintains that abortion must be considered in the same way as other medical procedures, some nuances should be added.
From the strictly medical point of view, it is a medical procedure like others. But from a moral point of view, it is a very different kind of medical procedure. Indeed, as the Hon. Jake Epp said, "it is the only medical procedure that involves taking the life of an unborn child as a way to improve the quality of life for someone else, namely, the pregnant woman."
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 takes account of the Supreme Court judgement that, in ruling section 251 invalid, wanted the procedure to be less cumbersome.
Instead of three physicians, there will be only one. This reduction would be acceptable if the decision were made "after objective analysis of all other possible solutions", as the CMA's brief to the legislative committee says. But we must ensure that this analysis has been done properly. At one in his trials, Dr. Morgentaler admitted that he did nothing of the kind. In short, he performed abortion on demand, which is unacceptable; no surgical operation is performed on demand.
If Parliament decided to have a sort of committee do this analysis, this committee would have to be very flexible. First of all, the ultimate goal of such a committee should be to have as many women as possible who want to interrupt their pregnancy carry it to term by helping them to make an enlightened and responsible
Government Orders
decision. Otherwise, the number of abortions will not go down and the fine statements in favour of respect for life will come to naught.
However, this committee would not have to grant approval: it would simply confirm that the analysis the CMA mentioned had been done.
The woman involved would then make her decision by herself, thus respecting the moral aspect of this medical procedure since the conscience regulates morality: "Those who act according to their conscience, even when misguided, as long as they show goodwill, also obey the laws of God since they follow the first and only true principle of listening to their conscience". This is Saint Thomas Aquinas's moral philosophy. An act in keeping with the person's conscience is subjectively good even if it is a crime in itself.
In a sphere where there is no unanimity, even among supporters of the Catholic moral code, we must compensate for the often denounced vagueness of reasons for abortion by putting more faith into the sense of morality of the people involved. While the Catholic religion does not allow abortions under any circumstances, it makes them possible by invoking the first precept of the Catholic ethic: "Obey your conscience".
As for the second constraint imposed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, no sanctions should be taken against the people involved, such as doctors and nurses, as long as they follow the procedure outlined in the legislation.
Bernard Haring wrote: "Almost everywhere abortions performed by a physician for vital or simply therapeutic purposes are left unpunished". In terms of morality, not allowing is one thing but not punishing is another.
Finally, the bill extends the notion of health to mental and psychological health.
A legislator tormented by his conscience could include the "particularly painful cases" Haring was talking about.
Julien Harvey seemed to reassure them when he wrote: "The mother's distress and not only her physical health can justify, in conscience and in law, an abortion as a lesser evil in the first quarter of pregnancy, a restriction that a long religious tradition in the West

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
allows us to contemplate". This can be found in the September issue of Relations, at page 196.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, an abortion law would not come into conflict with the principles of Catholic morality, the most rigid of moral doctrines, as long as it contained the four following provisions: making abortion a crime when it is performed by a person other than a physician and providing for appropriate penalties; outlining a way of doing the "objective analysis of all the alternatives" the CMA was referring to; making the pregnant woman responsible for her own decision; not imposing penalties when this procedure has been followed.
This, Mr. Speaker, is only a very small part of my reflections. We could talk about it for hours but I would like to close by saying I will give the government my total support when we vote on this bill which of course is not perfect but, under the circumstances, tries to conciliate the various positions.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Motion No. 10 to Bill C-43, as proposed by my hon. colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. This amendment, if adopted, would allow abortions to be performed only if the mother's life was threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy.
Since Bill C-43 first came before this House, various groups have presented their views to the legislative committee on an act respecting abortions. Thousands of Canadians have written to their members of Parliament, and several members of this House have proposed amendments to the bill.
The conviction of the people in the riding of Hillsborough, who I represent, has not wavered. The majority of my constituents and I believe that human life begins at conception, and it must be protected by law at all stages. With such a conviction, I cannot support Bill C-43 unless it is amended. The life of the unborn child must be protected by law and I could only support a bill which provides such protection.
I did vote for Bill C-43 at second reading, but I supported it so that the bill would go to a legislative committee where amendments could be proposed that would fully protect the life of the unborn child.
Even as I voted for it at second reading, I knew that the only exception to the full protection of the foetus which I could ultimately support, would provide that an abortion could be performed to save the mother's life. That is what the motion I am discussing proposes to do. If it is not adopted, then I cannot possibly support the bill.
If Bill C-43 were to pass as is, an abortion would be legal when performed for health reasons, whether for mental, physical or psychological factors. This is a flimsy disguise for abortion on demand, and Canadians will not condone such hypocrisy. Pro-abortion advocates would have us believe that if we deny women access to abortion on demand, we are denying them basic health care. I have several problems with that argument, but the most fundamental one is that we are dealing with two human lives here, not one.
I am horrified that anyone could say that a procedure which kills one human being for the convenience of another is a medical procedure. Abortion is the killing of a human being, and a helpless one at that. If we do not ensure that abortions are performed only to save the mother's life, then our society will be condoning abortion on demand.
We hear a great deal about freedom of choice. The rallying cry of the pro-abortion forces is that every woman must have the freedom to choose whether or not to bear children. I wholeheartedly agree that everyone must have the freedom to choose, but I say that the time for this choice is before conception takes place.
The choice to be made is whether to take the risk of conception occurring at all. Once a choice has been made and a human being has been created, the woman and her family have different choices to make. It is not true that after a pregnancy has begun there are no other options. The pro-abortion groups would have us believe it is a black and white situation, but that is not true.
Thousands of Canadian couples are infertile and long for a child of their own. Waiting lists at adoption agencies are years long. The so-called black market in babies exists, and the emergence of surrogate motherhood is evidence of the desperate longing of infertile couples to have children.
There are loving, stable homes for babies born to women whose families cannot support them. In view of
May 22, 1990

this, abortion on demand is an act of pure selfishness. I am not pretending that unwanted pregnancies are trivial or that they are easy experiences for people to live through. No one would deny that women with unwanted pregnancies, and their families, deserve all the support that we can give them during a very difficult time.
Support is the key, not denial. A healthy, humane, caring society must address the situation of unwanted pregnancies and not pretend that they do not happen. Abortion is a denial of the problem of unwanted pregnancy, and it is a denial of responsibility. Above all, it is a fundamental denial of the value of human life.
Bill C-43 completely fails to address the painful issue that is troubling this country's conscience. It fails to provide leadership on this fundamental, social and moral issue, which are the factors that drive women to seek abortions.
Abortion is not an answer to poverty, rape, sexual abuse, family violence or teenage pregnancy. It must not be allowed to become an escape from responsibility, either for the individual or for our society as a whole. I stated that I believe in the sanctity of human life, and that life begins at conception. Like all humans, unborn children deserve the full protection of the law. How can any civilized society which professes to care for the rights of the individual, which professes to be a world leader in human rights, deny these rights to one group simply because they are at a different stage of life. It is not a less valuable stage, not a less human stage, just a different stage, a totally vulnerable stage.
Our society has many problems to solve, such as the problem which led us to this dreadful situation in which thousands of abortions were performed every year. However, Bill C-43 as it stands is not an answer because abortion is not an answer. Bill C-43 must be amended to fully protect human life from conception onward. Only when the mother's life is threatened can abortion be considered an option, and with the advances in medical technology being made every day, I believe that this scenario has become an extremely rare one.
Mr. Speaker, if the motion of my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is not adopted and if we do not change this bill so that the rights of the unborn
Government Orders
child are fully protected by law, then I must vote against this bill.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate most sincerely the opportunity to say a few words at report stage of Bill C-43, which as you are well aware, deals with the sensitive and very controversial issue of abortion.
My own views with respect to this matter of abortion are well known. I have spoken out in my own riding over the years, I have spoken out in other parts of Canada and I have spoken out in this House on numerous occasions, the last time being on November 23 of last year in the debate on second reading. In each case I made it quite clear where I stood, that I stand clearly and firmly on the pro-life side of the scale.
The bill before us at report stage has certain elements. As I pointed out in my remarks in this House on November 23 of last year, these elements support the pro-life position, in particular, the bill provides that abortion is an offence under the Criminal Code. It also rejects, and rejects quite clearly, the gestational approach to abortion and therefore it recognizes implicitly, if not explicitly, that life does begin at conception.
Having said that in my remarks at second reading, the bill as it now stands at report stage, is an extremely disappointing one for me. It is a bill which has many exemptions and a bill that is far wider than the sort of legislation that I would like to see before this House.
I had hoped that we would see some substantial amendments to this bill after it passed second reading and went to a legislative committee where the committee had an opportunity to examine it clause by clause to hear witnesses and to make amendments. I have been a member of numerous legislative committees in the past where very substantial amendments were made to legislation. Certainly I had hoped most fervently that we would see those kinds of amendments come from the legislative committee and that the bill at report stage would be an entirely different one from the one we see before us today.
Clearly, that did not happen and it has left me with a deep, extreme and profound sense of disappointment about what has happened to this bill. At the same time that presents me with a supreme dilemma, a dilemma of whether I am now in a position to support Bill C-43 in an unamended stage or not.

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
I do not like this bill. The Prime Minister has indicated that it is a free vote for other members of this House, but it is not a free vote for members of cabinet. That is a position that has left me deeply troubled. It has left me struggling with my conscience. It has left me with many sleepless nights. It has left me doing a great deal of praying as I am, quite frankly, right at this very moment.
I have come to the conclusion that this particular bill, no matter whether it passes this House or whether it does not pass this House, will not be the end of the great struggle for the pro-life side of the argument, for the pro-life movement on this issue. If this particular bill is defeated in this House, the pro-life struggle is going to continue. If this particular bill passes this House, the pro-life struggle is still going to continue.
Bearing in mind that no matter what happens to this particular legislation the struggle is going to go on, I have to face in my heart whether it is going to further the pro-life cause and further my own pro-life convictions to have one less voice in cabinet in support of the pro-life position and, in all likelihood, to have one more prochoice voice in cabinet contrary to the pro-life position.
As I say, I have struggled long and I have struggled hard and I still continue to struggle with this. I suspect that after the votes are cast, I will continue to search my soul and my heart on this particular issue.
However, I have come to the conclusion that, because this is not the end of the struggle and because the pro-life position is going to go on whether this bill passes or is defeated, rightly or wrongly, I am going to support this bill.
If I am wrong in that decision, then without a doubt it is the absolute duty of those who believe I am wrong to work their hardest and do their utmost to ensure my defeat at the next election.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendments to Bill C-43, and in particular to support Motion No. 24.
I do this because I believe that a compassionate society and a Parliament elected to represent society's needs and society's wishes does not need to return to a time when women were criminals for exercising the most fundamental of human rights, that right being the
personal care and control of one's body. Reproductive choice is a basic and fundamental right.
I rise also to argue that the role of Parliament is not to imprison women forced to make difficult decisions, but rather to provide the leadership, the process and the money for better prevention of unplanned pregnancies, and to ensure that every child bom in this nation and every woman who chooses to be a mother has the opportunity to live a full and rich life, a life free of poverty, ignorance, violence and abuse.
We are not the first, nor will we be the last society to debate abortion. This has been an issue of conflict throughout history. If there is one thing that we have learned from history, it is that no matter what the law, or how tough the sanctions, abortion will happen. Abortions, if they are not performed legally in medical facilities under the direction of a physician, will happen in much less favourable circumstances. As ugly as it may seem, women must not be forced to return to those ugly circumstances of using coat hangers, vacuum cleaners, or putting themselves in the hands of quacks. It is an ugly reality, but it is a reality. Women die as a result of these kinds of processes. Young women are sterilized as a result of these kinds of procedures. The reality is that any amendment that puts abortion back in the Criminal Code will sentence some women somewhere in Canada to sterility or to death. That is not supporting life.
The bill before us and the amendments being debated today in many ways define the fundamental value and inherent dignity of each human being and the worth of each human life.

This debate cannot be used to convince people. That is impossible, and if we, as legislators, keep trying to do so, we would be losing our time and we would not be serving our constituents. What we ought to do is define the common goals we should strive to attain, which are to glorify life, to respect life and to reduce the number of abortions.
On one side, there are those who believe that to legislate criminal sanctions is the only way to reach our goals. On the other, there are those, like myself, who believe that the only way to reach our end is to develop social and economic policies which would ensure that every child, every woman, and even every family is respected and even glorified.
May 22, 1990

Government Orders

We have made this realization in other areas. It was not that long ago that attempting suicide was a criminal offence which appeared in the Criminal Code. Statistically, suicide attempts are most prevalent among young men and teenage boys. So do we threaten today to fill the prisons with young men attempting suicide? Do we believe that criminal sanctions will actually reduce the number of attempts? Of course not. We know that it is an emotional issue. It is an issue that needs to be dealt with in other ways.
We responded by removing attempted suicide from the Criminal Code and putting the emphasis where it belongs, on prevention and support. That was the right thing to do, just as ensuring that abortion remains decriminalized is the right thing to do.
There has been much said during this debate about respect for human life, about how our society and our nation is based on this respect. I say to the members of this Chamber and to Canadians everywhere, words are not enough. It is much easier for us to stand here and to legislate than to bend down and offer a helping hand to a child who has been abused, a woman who is tormented, or an unemployed father who is wondering how he is going to feed his family. The answer is clearly that this must be, and regardless of the law we pass here will continue to be, the choice of women.
I would like to draw this House's attention to what I think is a very good statement. This statement was made on July 27,1988, in this House by the present Minister of Employment and Immigration who stated:
And make no mistake, women make the right choice, a far better
choice than you or I or all the pageantry of institutions that have
been invented by human beings from the beginning of time.
I agree with that statement made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I believe she was reflecting that women are adults, that women can make the right choices, and whatever any institution decides to do, we will not be able to control the decisions of women. It must be the choice of all women. We know that women of wealth and power have options, and part of what we are debating today is whether or not that freedom will be extended to all women.
All women, not just the wealthy, must be free to decide the number and the spacing of their children. All children have the right to be raised in a family capable of providing housing and food and proper nurturing. All children have the right to be raised in a family free of violence and abuse.
If anyone believes that they can lay claim to a respect for life because they legislated against abortion, while voting for cuts to child care, cuts to shelters for abused women, cuts to job creation, cuts to prenatal health and prevention, then they are fooling themselves. They are not fooling the electorate, they are fooling themselves.
I am not going to debate which side of the question has a monopoly on the respect for life. I am pro-choice and I will put my commitment and my record of action up against anyone's when it comes to a respect for human life.

If we go beyond the legal, medical, and philosophical questions raised by this debate, we see that the real issue is, in fact, very simple. Who is to decide whether a pregnancy shoud be interrupted? Judges and lawyers? The Church? Or maybe politicians and legislators? Or should not the women, given their unique capability to conceive, look deep into their hearts and souls and make that decision?
I think those decisions should be the responsibilities of the women. They have heard every argument. They know that some families are eager to adopt children. And they know that every child has the right to live a good life. So what gives us the impression that we are in a better position to make that decision? Ten years of legal or medical training do not give anyone the right to impose his or her views.

There are things a woman considers in deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, and no matter what her decision, there are no moral or ethical grounds for putting her in prison.
Bill C-43 must be amended to read simply: "Sections 287 and 288 of the Criminal Code are repealed". To do anything else is a disservice to Canadian women and families.

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
I will vote for this amendment and I will vote against Bill C-43 because Bill C-43 limits the right to a woman's choice and to a woman's control over her own life.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased once again to have this opportunity to express my strong opposition to Bill C-43, the so-called abortion bill.
There is no question in my mind that the fundamental purpose of Bill C-43 is to provide ready access to abortion. Therefore, the defeat of this bill is absolutely essential because it does not offer any protection to unborn children. The government made it emphatically clear that it will not entertain any amendments. It wants the bill passed as it is. So what we have is a bill that provides abortion on demand, protected by the law of the land.
Bill C-43 will not only increase the number of abortions, which number some 1.5 million since 1969 in Canada, but it is being treated as a compromise bill by some who should know better. Any compromise on abortion means legalizing the death of some unborn children.
The only law that is fair and just is a law that protects unborn children from the moment of conception.
Bill C-43 must be defeated so that the fight on behalf of all our unborn children, now and in the future, will not diminish but will continue in a very active way so that some day we will have instituted the protection of unborn children as a law of Canada.
When we think about abortion, we think about the aborted child who cannot speak for himself, who cannot defend himself from his executioners, and who is deprived of all his or her rights that we know are here today and are being taken for granted by those of us who are living.
Our fellow human beings who have already been aborted were never given a trial, there were no judges ever present, there was no jury and no appeal, and there has never been a stay of execution. In fact, as I mentioned, since 1969 some 1.5 million unborn Canadians were heartlessly and brutally murdered, with no chance of defending themselves or anyone interceding on their
behalf in a legal way to stop the carnage and wholesale murder of our unborn babies.
If unborn babies could talk, I am sure what would be on their minds before being executed would be this thought: "If so soon I would be done for, why on earth was I begun for?" I would ask: Has the civilized nation of our society degenerated to such a low ebb that we have resorted to destroying the most defenceless of human beings, our unborn children?
Compassion indicates that we protect children in the womb, as well as providing real and substantial help to their mothers when needed. There are distressed pregnant women out there who need and deserve assistance to help them give birth and support to their children.
The unborn child is a human being and is entitled to the full protection of the law, as are all human beings. As I mentioned a moment ago, any compromise on abortion means legalizing the death of some unborn children.
No one would ever think of legalizing the rape of some women or legalizing the abuse of some children already born. The theft of money is not legal, nor is it legal to commit murder on humans already born. It is wrong, wrong, wrong to take the life of an unborn child.
From its beginning in the womb life is a continuation, not measured in weeks, inches or pounds; a human being exists and is alive from the moment of conception. Abortion at any time after conception kills an innocent, defenceless human being.
For abortion to be legalized in the Criminal Code indicates implicit acknowledgement that abortion is wrong. There is no logical way in which it can be acknowledged that both it is wrong and that it should be legal. Anyone who believes that abortion is wrong must discard the position that abortion should be legal. In fact a person who believes that abortion is wrong but also sanctions Bill C-43 must be prepared to say that it is civilized and appropriate for society to permit the killing of innocent and defenceless human beings, so long as the killing is done by a medical practitioner or someone authorized by him, with the consent of the victim's mother.
Bill C-43 is deceptively presented as balancing the constitutional rights of the woman and the right to life of another human being, namely her unborn child. The avoidance of any reference to the child who is awaiting
May 22, 1990

birth raises questions about the sincerity of the claimed intent to protect.
One is also compelled to question the protection extended to the women in Bill C-43 as it legalizes abortions right up to the time of birth, even though a woman's life would be genuinely at risk when an abortion is performed during the later stages of pregnancy.
Moreover, the proposed legislation in Bill C-43 would not require the abortion to be performed by a physician, nor is it required that the abortion be performed in a credible hospital. To legitimize abortion should the woman's health or life likely be threatened is virtually to eliminate any restrictions on abortion. Even those who advocate a woman's right to abortion recognize that the language of this bill is such that it would permit abortion simply if the woman was unhappy about being pregnant. Being unhappy about being pregnant is often a temporary state of mind even for women who have planned their pregnancies.
Not only is there an attempt being made to fool Canadians into thinking that this law has the interest of the unborn at heart, Bill C-43 is an affront to our intelligence and an affront to our sense of justice in Canada.
Furthermore, it is irresponsible for Canadians to leave the decision of whether a baby is allowed to live or die in the hands of the medical profession whose track record on the interpretation of "health" for the purpose of abortion has been so questionable in the past.
To give substance to this claim, one only need note the fact that close to 80,000 women in hospitals and clinics submit to abortions annually for reasons of so-called health, when even abortionists themselves admit that 20th century medicine has virtually eliminated risks for even the very sick pregnant women.
In 1969 Canadian people were assured that the proposed legislation at that time would not result in an increased rate of abortions. Obviously the government of the day underestimated the teaching value of the law. It now appears that the present government is about to make the same mistake.
Government Orders
No one, except those who choose not to accept the truth, will deny that abortion kills a living human being. It is acknowledged that the commitment of an abortion is not new. What is new to Canadians is the state's sanctioning of this form of killing with flagrant disregard for the value of human life from its very beginnings. It behooves us at this time to recall what history has recorded when society sanctions the killing of the weak and defenceless.
I would just like to say a few words about the pro-abortion and pro-choice movement. It seems that the pro-choice movement puts up a lot of smokescreens to support its position on abortion. One of its more confusing statements is the basic right to control our bodies.
In this day and age a woman who allows herself to get pregnant when she does not want a child certainly does not appear to be in control of her body. Women today are educated at an early stage about sexuality and birth control. There are free clinics all over the country that give out information or even help with birth control. With the resources available, why would a woman who gets an abortion feel more in control of her body when she was not in enough control before becoming pregnant to seek out the information needed?
It seems to me that a lot of the pro-choice movement is centered around that basic age old theme of having your cake and eating it too.
Another common argument of the pro-choice movement is that so many unwanted babies is a huge, financial burden to society. What about the cost of not letting these human beings grow up into productive adults? Think about all the potential doctors, teachers, nurses, priests, ministers, construction workers, lawyers, diplomats, presidents, et cetera, who will never contribute their talents to this desperate, floundering world because of the evil of abortion.
Because of allocation of time I will conclude my remarks by saying that Parliament not only has the right but the urgent duty to protect human life from the moment of conception and pass legislation to this effect.
To accept Bill C-43 would mean accepting wholesale abortion on demand. We would be accepting a law that is unacceptable and evil. That is why I will be voting against Bill C-43.

May 22, 1990
Government Orders


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-43, an Act respecting abortion, and to do so at the report stage, when amendments are presented.
I intend to vote against the bill in its present form, unless there are reasonable amendments. The most reasonable amendment I could find was Motion No. 10 submitted by one of my colleagues, in which he asks that Bill C-43 be amended in clause 1 by deleting the word "health". To me, Mr. Speaker, this is very important. To me, abortion is a matter of ethics and morality. Human life is very important. The unborn child, the viable foetus must be protected, and I see that this bill contains no protection for the viable foetus. I find that hard to understand.
I would find it very difficult to vote for a bill that does not respect life. As a legislator, I believe we should always consider legislation in the light of protecting life and the family.
The family is the most precious thing we have in our community. And what is more precious in a family than its members, starting with our babies? Another thing I do not like in this bill is that it introduces the criminal aspect, in other words, it criminalizes both the physician and the mother.
I do not think we should criminalize a mother who is desperately trying to get an abortion. I think society has a responsibility to give a young mother the support she needs. I imagine that, in most cases, when we are talking about abortion we are talking about young pregnant mothers, young pregnant women, future mothers.
What we need above all is social, medical and family support. This is very important in a person's life. People should not consider abortion as a solution, as a way to get rid of an incidental problem-the problem of being pregnant.

It is absolutely essential that we protect life and the family and the viable foetus. In my mind it is absolutely important that we develop a law that protects life, protects the family, and comes to the support of a young pregnant person who needs help and is desperate all of a
sudden. Society, the communities, the social services in communities, and the immediate family-all of these groups-need to assist the pregnant woman.
On occasion we hear about the rights of persons, the rights of people, the rights of mothers, the rights of women to control their bodies. I am sure we all have rights to protect our bodies. We do not have the right to pour a can of gasoline on ourselves and just light up and say as an excuse that it is my right to control my body. This is obviously an extreme example of control of your body, but you cannot destroy your body. If you are pregnant and you want to destroy the foetus that is something similar in my mind. It is just as extraordinary. I think the idea is to try to save the baby.
In the history of art, architecture and sculpture, one would know that Leonardo Da Vinci was an unwanted child. What if Leonardo Da Vinci's mother had decided to have an abortion? I think the answer is very obvious. There are in my mind all sorts of people in the world who may not become a Leonardo Da Vinci but have a great deal to contribute to society. Some of them may even grow up to become doctors who would save the life of the same mother who had that thought earlier in life.
The idea of criminalization vis-a-vis the doctor is absolutely abhorrent and should not be thought of. If there is going to be any criminalization, I would suggest that it should be those people who operate clandestine operations, the coat hanger operations, or whatever abhorrent examples we hear of, not the doctors who make the decisions, not the young mother who is struck all of a sudden by having to make such a hard decision.
It has always been my contention that abortion is an option that should only be entertained when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or in the very rare case of rape or incest, and that within the shortest possible period. I believe that in far too many cases, if this bill is passed as is, the use of the word "health" will be misused.
No one believes that any woman who makes the decision to have an abortion is happy to have made the decision. However, there are other options open to these women. Rather than debating abortion, our society should be looking at ways in which we can better support women and children.
May 22, 1990

Continuing to allow the word "health" in the bill will only continue to allow abortion on demand. Too often the word "health" has been used in a very vague way, thereby allowing a decision to be made for termination of the pregnancy for frivolous reasons.
Under the previous legislation we saw that unwanted pregnancies were aborted because the mother convinced a panel that carrying the baby to term would affect her health psychologically. This opens up the whole issue of abuse. I have been and continue to be in favour of abortion when the life of the mother is at risk. I believe firmly in the ability of medical practitioners to make these decisions. By deleting the word "health" the emphasis will thereby be placed on the word "life", and all life-threatening situations will be covered by this bill.
I believe in the preservation of the family. Let us help mothers who find themselves in the difficult position of unfortunate pregnancy but, also, let us save them from making the decision to abort a foetus by voting down this amendment which ultimately will lead to abortion on demand. We must protect the life of the unborn child. We must protect the family.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in January, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the section of the Criminal Code dealing with this matter on the ground that the procedures therein deprive the pregnant woman of the right to security of her person under Section 7 of the charter. Since that time the unborn child has been without legal protection in Canada.
I spoke on this matter in July, 1988, and again last fall. I say again that there must be some law in this area. We hear, in this place of concern for wildlife, whales, seals and trees. We halt much needed projects over concern for waterfowl. Surely, it is not too much to ask for some legal guide posts in regard to human life, a statement as to how Canadians view life itself, when life begins, the value of the human being, and whether the exercise of a woman's individual freedom overrides the life of the unborn child within her.
We must have a law that reflects the beliefs of our society, hopefully a law that affirms that life has value regardless of its state of development, that recognizes that a human being is involved. It should be a federal law, one that is national in scope and one that applies to
Government Orders
all Canadians. The division of legislative powers under our Constitution is such that the only way in which the federal government can enact such a law in this field is through the criminal law. The federal government cannot directly regulate abortion or the conduct of individuals in any other way.
It is for this reason that Bill C-43, an amendment to the Criminal Code, was introduced last fall in an attempt to find some middle ground between conflicting points of view that are by their very nature irreconcilable.
Bill C-43 attempts to provide some legal protection to the unborn child by making it a criminal offence to induce an abortion unless the procedure is done by, or under the direction of, a medical practitioner who is of the opinion that, if the abortion were not induced, the life or health of the female person would likely be threatened. Health includes physical, mental or psychological health.
A number of amendments have been made and we are now, at report stage, able to speak to these amendments which will be voted on tomorrow evening. I intend to support the amendments which will strengthen the bill and better protect the unborn human.
Those amendments are as follows: Motion 10 would delete health as a criterion thereby leaving threat to life of the female person as the only grounds for abortion. While the recent comments of the Supreme Court of Canada would seem to indicate that this position is very likely unconstitutional, I am nevertheless prepared in principle to support it.
Motion No. 12 adds the word "seriously", to read, "the health or life of the female person would likely be seriously threatened". If Motion No. 10 fails I will support this motion.
Motion No. 13 adds the further requirement that the medical practitioner conclude there is no other medically acceptable treatment to alleviate the health risk. If Motion No. 12 fails I will support Motion No. 13.
Motion No. 16 would alter the definition of health under Section 287(2) of the Criminal Code to say "considerations of physical and mental factors as they cause a serious threat to life and health". This would eliminate the psychological or socio-economic factor. I would support this motion.

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
Motion No. 17A would delete the word "psychological" from the health definition. If Motion No. 16 fails, I will support Motion No. 17A.
Motion No. 17B again involves the definition of health and reads "physical and mental health and does not include psychological health". If Motions Nos. 16 and 17A should both fail I will vote yes to Motion No. 17B.
Motion No. 19 would expand the definition of the word "opinion" under Section 287(2) of the Criminal Code to say, "standards of the medical profession, developed from a solid body of scientific knowledge". I would support that motion.
Having reviewed these various amendments one must consider the possibility, indeed the probability, that none of them will be approved. While I hope and pray that some additional protection for the unborn might come out of these amendments, I think it likely that at third and final reading this House will be considering Bill C-43 as it is, unamended.
Since I may not be able to speak again on the matter I would like to take the opportunity to examine the options available to me as a member who supports a pro-life position, who has consistently voted pro-life and must face the hard choice of either voting for Bill C-43 with all of its imperfections or of standing with the NDP and others who want no law at all, who advocate no legal protection for the unborn.
The suggestion has been made by pro-life organizations, and quite correctly, that Parliament could legislate on abortion in a manner much more favourable to the unborn than C-43. The operative word, of course, is "could", if a majority of members of Parliament so agreed it could. But that is simply not the case. The majority in this place does not want to make abortion any more restrictive than is stated in this bill. I do, others do, but the majority does not.
Perhaps a future Parliament will take a more restrictive view. That remains to be seen. But neither the previous Parliament in the 1988 debate nor this Parliament today contain sufficient members to pass genuinely restrictive legislation.
Let no one think for a moment that the defeat of this bill will lead to a better bill next week, next month, or
next year. This thirty-fourth Parliament will have spoken on the issue and the matter will not be dealt with until after the next general election. The choice before us today is, I believe, Bill C-43 or nothing. Bill C-43 with its wide definition of health, including psychological health, falls far short of protecting the unborn.
On the other hand the bill does have positive aspects. It does recriminalize abortion. The inclusion under the Criminal Code sends the message that foetal life is worthy of respect, promotion and protection. The bill does reject the gestational approach. It does recognize that life springs from the moment of conception. It says that we as a society do not measure arbitrarily the value of life by its stages. The requirement that there be grounds is important because it affirms that abortion is more than a mere matter of choice. It does restore some protection by requiring the opinion of a medical practitioner who in turn is governed by a series of ethical and professional considerations.
Clearly Bill C-43 is a compromise. In regard to this matter of compromise I would like to make a couple of references. The first is to Tom Schuck, President of the Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association and its pro-life publication of April, 1990, which states in part:
What if the reality is that we do not have enough pro-life parliamentarians to pass the ideal law to end all abortion? Do we support legislation that limits abortion to save as many lives as possible? Are those that support imperfect alternatives compromising the unborn? Or are those who compromise the unborn really those who oppose limiting legislation regardless of the consequences?"
The Permanent Council of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, in their presentation to the legislative committee on this bill, said at page 14:
When it is the only available or feasible political option, support may be given to legislation which attempts, if only imperfectly, to restore protection.
Mr. Speaker, of course this bill is a compromise. Every bill put in this House is a compromise of some sort; a reconciliation of competing and diverse interests. While I am far from being satisfied, I am nevertheless going to vote for the bill because the alternative is not a better law. The alternative is no law at all, a continuing total lack of protection, and the longer we go without a law, the less likely we are ever to have one.
May 22, 1990

In my mind, Bill C-43 represents a foundation for the future. If C-43 passes, we will at least have some recognition of life from conception and some, albeit limited, protection for the unborn. Those who want more protection for the unborn will have the opportunity in future general elections to seek more representatives who are prepared to support their viewpoint.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that more effort has to be directed to education, to counselling and to greater individual responsibility. Adoptive processes must be improved and assisted and ways must be found to assist the churches and other organizations which support women in difficult circumstances.
In closing, let me endorse a further quotation from the presentation made by the Catholic bishops at page 15:
We shall renew our efforts to educate about positive life-giving
solutions to unwanted pregnancies, and increase our support for those
individuals and agencies who are providing much needed services.
Finally, I would like to thank the thousands of constituents who took time to respond to my various questionnaires, who wrote to me and phoned me and with whom I have met in person over this difficult issue, including members of the medical fraternity within my community and with many clergymen of various denominations. Their thoughtfulness, advice and input has been most helpful.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43 at this stage.
As you know, I supported this bill at second reading not because I supported or agreed with the substance of the bill but because I felt it necessary that the bill proceed to committee to provide the opportunity for amendments to be put and carried in order to strengthen this particular piece of legislation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this bill was not amended at committee and the committee, in effect, endorsed the bill as it is. I find that extremely regrettable.
This bill is a bad piece of legislation. It is a bad bill, a fraudulent piece of legislation in that it purports to be all things to all people. On the one hand it re-introduces the subject of abortion into the Criminal Code of Canada, in effect saying that abortion is illegal, a criminal act. On the other hand, it defines abortion in such a broad fashion as to be tantamount to abortion on
Government Orders
demand. The operative clause in this bill, Bill C-43, reads as follows:
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.
"Health" is defined, as including:
for greater certainty, physical, mental and psychological health.
In effect, this allows for abortion on demand or abortion on request.
I think it is important to ask the question why we are dealing with Bill C-43 in this Parliament. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its wisdom, decided that the previous Criminal Code provisions with respect to abortion were unconstitutional and declared the provisions null and void. That was over two years ago. For two years the government has dithered. The government has not had the backbone or the courage to bring forward legislation and to allow a true free vote here in the House of Commons.
On November 3, 1989, Bill C-43 was introduced for first reading. There is a recognition by the mere fact the government introduced the bill, that unborn children must be protected. That is the fundamental raison d'etre or purpose for introducing into the Criminal Code of Canada the subject of abortion.
Human life begins at the moment of conception and, therefore, must be protected from the moment of conception until natural death. At present there is no recognition whatsoever of human life before the moment of birth. The moment a child is born, that child is afforded each and every protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no distinction between human life before and after birth.
A number of years ago in the House of Commons, we abolished capital punishment. Under no circumstances, in Canada, can human life be taken after birth, regardless of how miserable or how criminal that life may be, or what criminal act that person may have committed.
At the moment before birth, there is absolutely no protection whatsoever for that human life. For anyone to suggest or argue that human life begins at birth, I believe, is a ludicrous and nonsensical. That is what those who argue no law at all are suggesting, that there is no need to protect life before birth, that life ought to be protected only from the moment of birth onward. Surely,

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
any reasonable Canadian knows that there is life before birth. A minute before, an hour before, a day before, a month before, there is a child. There is human life in the womb of the mother.
If we respect life at all, if we attach any respect for human life, we must as Parliamentarians address the question of whether or not there ought to be protection for life before birth. If we are to be classed as a civilized, civil, and moral society, there must be recognition of life before birth.
Where the issue becomes difficult is where that life begins and at what point should that life be protected. There is only one logical place for life to begin-and I have struggled with this particular question. That is at the moment of conception. To argue that life begins at some other point from conception until birth would suggest that at some precise moment there is life after that precise moment and that before that precise moment there is not life. No medical or logical argument has been advanced to my satisfaction that would allow me to conclude that life begins at some point other than at conception.
Some suggest that viability ought to be the deciding factor and that we ought to use the trimester system to determine when life should be protected. I cannot accept that. I believe that life in whatever form must be protected. Surely, the moment life begins is the moment of conception.
I would like to state unequivocally that I intend to vote against Bill C-43, unless it is amended substantially. Regardless of what happens to the bill, the issues of abortion and the recognition and protection of human life before birth will always be issues to be faced by Parliament.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue and one's belief of when life begins, there is common ground that must be met and searched for in order to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies in Canada. Today, we know that approximately 75,000 to 80,000 abortions take place annually. Surely, those on both sides of the issue
can agree that more effort should be put into trying to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.
We are dealing with women who, for a number of different reasons, do not want to proceed with a pregnancy and want to terminate it. I believe sincerely that greater effort must be expended in order to turn some of those unwanted pregnancies into wanted pregnancies and reduce the numbers of abortions that take place. The national government, in co-operation with the provincial and municipal levels of government, must provide a significant increase in resources in order to provide the necessary education, counselling, and resources to try to convince couples and women who find themselves in situations of unwanted pregnancies to try to turn those pregnancies into wanted ones.
Statistics of recent years indicate a very steady increase in the number of abortions, as well as in the number of women having multiple abortions. In 1970, just after the abortion laws were changed, there were just over 11,000 legal abortions in Canada. In 1986, 16 years later, 63,508 legal abortions were performed, which is an increase of approximately 550 per cent. Examined from a different perspective, in 1970 there were three abortions per 100 live births. By 1986, that number had increased to 17 abortions per 100 live births.
If we look at the numbers regarding repeat abortions, the percentage of women with at least one previous induced abortion increased from 8.6 per cent in 1975 to 24.2 per cent in 1986. In 1974, the first year for which there are records, 2,850 women had a second abortion. By 1986, 12 years later, 12,300 had had two abortions, an increase of 400 per cent. These are alarming statistics.
I note my time is up. I look forward to speaking to the bill at third reading stage. Unless Motion No. 10, which would allow abortions only when the life of the mother is in danger, as proposed by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is approved by the House, I would like to indicate to the House that I have no intention of supporting Bill C-43.


Mr. Bill  Doram@Peterborough: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on a subject that is not new to the House.
In retrospect, I cannot help but think back to the years 1978 and 1979 at which time the albatross was around the necks of the Liberals. It was then that we went into the
May 22, 1990

1979 election. There were a lot of comments made and debate entered into over the abortion issue.
In 1979, I campaigned against the Liberal legislation because, even with the review committees set up in the hospitals as a second board of review, there was still the likelihood of availability of abortion on demand in most cases. I also campaigned against the legislation in 1980, 1984, and 1988. Here I am standing in the House today with the same conviction that I had in 1978. No legislation is of any interest to me whatsoever, unless it protects the life of the unborn child from the moment of conception until the moment of birth, when that child becomes a person under our Constitution.
I have supported amendments to our present constitutional laws advanced by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey that we need to deal with an amendment to the Constitution. We need to change the Charter of Rights. Sooner or later, we have to realize that, if we are going to protect the unborn children as persons, they must be listed as persons in the Charter of Rights.
The exercise of debate, argument and court challenges will go on for generations in the United States, in Canada and in other countries, until we clearly define the rights of unborn children. I do not very often agree with criminal lawyers in debates I have had with them over the years, but I agree with what the Criminal Lawyer Association states in a letter sent to me. It reads:
We disagree with the Justice Minister. In our view doctors should be afraid, based not on fear of conviction, but on fear of being brought improperly into the criminal process. From our observations of prior use of the courts by those opposed to abortion, we believe that there will be frequent attempts at private prosecutions under this legislation. Under the old legislation, the existence of the Therapeutic Abortion Committee had the effect of insulating doctors from prosecution in abortion situations.
I agree with this 100 per cent. Even with therapeutic abortion committees there in 1979, when I first ran for a seat in Parliament, I would not support the bill. Why would I stand up in the House of Commons today, 11 years later, and suddenly support a bill advanced by my government that is far more liberal in the allowance of abortion than anything that I fought against in 1979?
Government Orders
We no longer have that opinion being offered by a second party. We no longer have the kinds of abortions on request that we had then. Now, all that is needed to have an abortion in Canada under our legislation is a pregnant woman, a Dr. Morgentaler and a free-standing clinic. One cannot think for one minute that I will ever be convinced that Dr. Morgentaler has the interests of the unborn children at heart through his clinics across Ontario and in other parts of the country, nor can one think free-standing clinics in Quebec have any interest in the protection of life. They are running a business.
What we are faced with now we will be faced with in the future, without even a second opinion. When the Government of Canada makes it perfectly clear that it does not intend to give serious consideration to any of the amendments, how can it expect a true pro-lifer to stand up in this House of Commons and say that he or she will support this bill because it is better than nothing?
The Catholic Bishops say that they do not like the bill, that it would not be their choice of legislation, but members of Parliament should support it because it is better than nothing. I call the Catholic Bishops the Pontius Pilates of today. They wash their hands of the issue. Yet who will be the first to go down in the next election? I maintain it will be those who support this bill, thanks to the Catholic Bishops and the like.
To substantiate that statement, I want to read to you from an editorial in The Catholic Register dated May 26, 1990.
"If the bill remains as is, it cannot have our approval." So wrote the President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops-
So, what we have in the bill is abortion on demand, protected by the law of the land.
Where have you heard that before? I heard that in the 1979 election campaign on the Liberal bill. I heard it in the 1980 election campaign and the others I have already mentioned.
This same The Catholic Register states:
Bill C-43 is not pro-life. It is pro-death.
What is the alternative? If the bill is defeated in the Commons, no other will be introduced by this government. But after the next general election, the MPs will know that they must deal with the issue, for there will be no law on the books.

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
Some Members of Parliament will be new then, elected by people of all Faiths who are determined to give pre-born babies the same opportunity to live and contribute to the community as they themselves were once given.
It is hardly fair that 10 minutes is all the time we have at report stage, dealing with this volume of amendments, and then only one 10-minute last recourse at third reading.
The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada do not support the bill, as evidenced in their letter of November 17, 1989. The Carleton Roman Catholic School Board does not support it. Neither does The Calgary Pro-Life Association nor does the Lutheran Church-Canada, which has quite a large membership. The Canadian Catholic School Trustees Association, the Catholic Lay Association, the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops do not support the bill, and yet they are telling us to vote for it, it is better than nothing.
I am warning all my colleagues for whom I have great esteem and who I wish will return to this House of Commons after the next election. Will the people support a member who supports a bill that is far more liberal than the bill we inherited from the Liberals when we took office in 1979?
If there is one amendment that I think has even the slightest chance of passing, I would vote for it and it alone and I would urge those who are really and truly pro-life to consider the same move. I would vote for Motion No. 10. Motion No. 10 would not satisfy Mother Teresa or Pope John Paul, but it would satisfy the majority of Canadian people if we were to support Motion No. 10.
However, the government has said today that it is not recommending any amendments, even the most minute amendment affecting very little of the functional ability of people to have abortions. The government is not interested in taking a serious look at any amendments.
So at report stage I would support one motion, Motion No. 10. At third reading I suspect we will not have Motion No. 10, or any other motion. For that reason at third reading I will vote the same way as I have voted for 12 years on this issue. I will take a pro-life stance. I will stand and defend it regardless of how many of my constituents tell me they will never vote for me again because I am pro-life. They told me that on capital
punishment, on metric and on extradition. If everybody who said they would not vote for me again ever got together in my riding I would not get any votes, I would be in a negative position.
The truth of the matter is that constitutents today look for members of Parliament who will come to Ottawa and try to do what they say they want to see done. In Canada today we have a strange collection of members of Parliament who are faced with conscience issues, party positions, government positions and constituency positions. Remember, members of Parliament will never go down in flames if they are consistent.
I am proud to say that I am voting against this bill and any other bill like it as long as I am fortunate enough to be here in this House of Commons.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I had planned what I was going to say about the motions before I came into the House today, but when I listened to the motions that were presented, many things went through my mind. I felt some very strange emotions.
I had not felt these things when I had looked at the written words of the motions. One of the things that went through my mind was that each and every one of these anti-choice, more restrictive motions was being proposed by men in this House of Commons and that the only pro-choice motion was being proposed by a woman, and that was me.
I am the only mover of an amendment who has actually been pregnant, who knows what women go through when they are pregnant, who knows what they go through when they give birth to children, who knows what women go through when they contemplate the choices that are ahead of them when they find out they are pregnant.
I have three grown children. The complete ignorance and lack of real feeling of what women go through when they are pregnant, when they contemplate an abortion, when they contemplate adoption, or when they contemplate the future and keeping that child, was so evident by the statements made by the other movers of motions in this House today.
I was shocked to hear phrases such as "abortions are performed for cosmetic reasons, for frivolous reasons", and "abortion is an easy option for women". Someone said that women say to themselves that they just do not
May 22, 1990

like this pregnancy so they terminate it. That is nonsense and is insulting to the women of Canada.
One mover made a bizarre analogy between the criminal penalties for abortion and the penalties for negligence when you are towing a water skier behind you on a boat. Pregnancy is a unique experience; it is not like water skiing, it is not like driving a boat, it is not like arson, it is not like anything else. It is a joyous and wondrous experience for those who have chosen to become mothers, but it can be a very painful and disastrous experience for those whose pregnancy is unwanted.
One mover of an anti-choice motion spoke of how his personal experience of raising a disabled child had shaped his opinion on the whole issue of abortion. My first child was born with a genetic mutation. It is a very serious and life-threatening mutation. He is handicapped and he is disfigured from the medical treatment that he had to undergo. This experience did not make me want to suppress women's choices. It did not make me want to decide for other women what their choices should be. It did not make me want to take away another woman's right to decide the number or the spacing of her children. I made personal decisions to carry out my pregnancies. My personal experiences do not entitle me to decide for other women what their choices should be.
The member spoke of how glad he was that his adopted child had been available for adoption. Well, I wonder about the women and the young girls who are pressured and sometimes even forced to give up their newborn infants for adoption. They might keep those children if they had the financial means. The answer to this situation is to support pregnant women and families, not to expect poor women to give away their children to better-off or well-off people.
Neither abortion, adoption nor keeping a child is an easy decision. The only people who can say that these are easy decisions are those who will never, ever have to face that kind of a decision. Women around the world have risked their lives, their health, their fertility, to obtain abortions in countries where they are illegal, where there is no access to abortions. Women die because they will always make that choice for themselves. They will
Government Orders
not allow the state to dictate to them their own personal choices on this issue.
Making abortion illegal does not stop abortion. It simply makes it dangerous, unsafe and a potential killer of women.
Some of these motions, if passed, would amount to a death sentence for some Canadian women. One of these motions would have us throw our medical practitioners in jail for up to 20 years. Under the aiding and abetting section of the Criminal Code, women who have abortions would also be liable to a severe term of imprisonment.
This is the solution that some members of this House say is the answer to this very, very complex social issue; an answer that would put teenage girls into jail; one that would have the effect of jailing mothers who already may have young children, simply because they could not bring themselves to bear another child.
The mover of Motion No. 5 said in his statement, "when I think an abortion should be available". Well, Mr. Speaker, how arrogant, how patronizing to the women of Canada. How dare any member of this House set him or herself up as the sole judge of how many children other people should have, when they should have them and why they should have them. This is an abuse of our role as legislators. Our job is not to intrude into the private affairs of individuals and to make personal, very intimate and very painful decisions for them. The decision to have children or not is one of the most private, intimate and individual decisions there can be.
I am glad to see that the Liberal member who submitted a motion that would have made some forms of birth control illegal has withdrawn it. It would be fitting if some other movers of motions contemplated what their motions would really do to women's lives and health and withdraw theirs as well. It is so obvious that these movers of motions have never experienced an unwanted pregnancy and cannot even contemplate with any degree of realism what it means to be faced with these decisions.
Another thing that I noticed was that the movers all supported one another. There was great camaraderie among them. They congratulated each other for their motions. Well it is time that the women in this House of Commons supported one another.

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
I have received support from my caucus but I look forward to receiving what all the women in Canada need, the support of all members of this Elouse who value the fundamental right of every person to control their own bodies and their own lives, the right to decide whether or not they will have children and when.
Most Canadians believe in family planning education and in support for pregnant women and families. This is the real solution. A November Environics poll found that 62 per cent of Canadians are opposed to this government's plan to recriminalize abortion.
This bill is no compromise, Mr. Speaker, it is a sell-out. These amendments before us seek to make a bad bill, a criminal bill, even worse.
I heard one of the Tories who moved an amendment talk about social policy in addition to a criminal law. Well, the most effective approach is social policy instead of a criminal law. It is ironic that while he spoke of social policy, the government which he supports is busy dismantling Canada's social support network, making it economically more difficult for people to raise their children. Ele is part of a government that scrapped the national child care program, deindexed family allowances and put a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan, which is the federal-provincial funding mechanism that currently provides child care spaces and shelters for battered and abused women.
I listened to the member for Peterborough who spoke before me. Ele indicates that he would even change the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country. He would change it to stop women having their full rights. It is shocking. I am horrified to hear some of the comments that have been made here.
I would like to address some of the comments that the Minister of Justice made when she spoke to the amendments. The minister said three times that society has an interest in protecting the foetus. Why is this government criminalizing abortion which provides no protection for the foetus? Many groups and individuals have told us that. That was the overwhelming input from Canadians who came to the legislative committee hearings.
If the government really wants to protect the foetus, why is it not concerned about reproductive health
hazards in the workplace, the higher incidence of women and men becoming infertile in our community? Why is it not working toward those issues and toward the underlying issue that always exists when women choose abortion, that is, poverty?
I urge all members to vote against the amendments and to vote for Motion No. 24 which is the pro-choice amendment.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the proposed amendments at report stage of Bill C-43. This is an issue that has touched every Canadian. It is an issue that I do not think anyone could have been elected to this House without addressing time and again in the various forums that led up to our election.
It is very obvious from the tone and tenor of the debate this afternoon on the amendments that everyone in the House recognizes how important this is. The debate is also being conducted in a manner in which I would like to see more of them conducted, with each member free to express his or her own point of view and to vote according to his or her own conscience or according to the wishes of his or her constituents.
Having said that, I do not know if very many of us are ready to handle the emotional weight that would be involved if we had to face many issues like this one.
The legislative committee that reviewed the bill deserves to be recognized and applauded for its work. It invested a tremendous amount of study and many hours in listening to witnesses and examining the same. It spent a lot of time in debate and in research. The members of the committee gave the issue much thought and did much soul-searching.
We all know that the bill was reported unamended. That does not mean that there was agreement, as we know. Far from it. This illustrates the problem that exists in trying to legislate a moral issue upon which there are greatly diverging views.
In my speech at second reading I said:
To achieve political solutions to the complex and controversial problems that come before us it is often necessary to accept compromise. On this issue, however, views are held so strongly and opinions are so galvanized that many of the people we represent are, because of personal convictions, unwilling or unable to compromise their position or their beliefs.
May 22, 1990

I went on to say:
Bill C-43 is by necessity a political answer to a moral question, and
as a political answer represents a compromise and moral values are
not subject to compromise.
My personal position is that life is sacred from the moment of conception until natural death. Many people who share that conviction with me have said that that they felt I compromised my views by supporting Bill C-43 at second reading. They asked how it was possible for me to accept a bill that was a compromise.
Politicians must face a reality that advocates outside of the legislative process do not have to face. We must sometimes accept a bill that is less than perfect when it is better than the alternative. At second reading the alternative was this bill or nothing. I supported it because it was better than the vacuum which existed, and which still exists. I supported it because it is still possible to strengthen it and provide more protection for the life of the unborn.
You cannot compromise moral values as an individual. It is not possible to compromise in your personal life and still retain those values. You are either right or you are wrong.
In the political process our values should be equally strong, but the reality is that to achieve political approval you need the support of half of the members of this House, and at this stage of the debate it is already becoming very apparent that it is going to be difficult to get that many members to support either extreme of the debate. We might well face the same question: not what is right or wrong; not what is the ideal; not what we would like; but what is best given the alternatives available.
The difficulty that the committee experienced illustrates just how difficult it is to achieve compromise in this moral issue, where strongly held opinions do not allow for it.
We are now engaged in debates on amendments at report stage, amendments that have the potential to either strengthen or weaken the bill and the protection it provides for the unborn.
In a brief presented to the legislative committee by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops they said:
Government Orders
You have the responsibility of drafting legislation which will profoundly affect future generations. Your recommendations will be a statement about the value Canadians place on human life. Yours is not an easy task, but we are confident that you have the ability, humanity and integrity to make a difference.
Time does not allow us to present detailed responses to each of the many amendments and motions before us today. These amendments could make a tremendous difference to the bill. It is my intention to support those amendments which offer more protection for the life of the unborn.
Bill C-43, as presented and reported, still makes an important statement about the importance of life. It recognizes that importance from the moment of conception. It states that it is a criminal act to abort that life unless the health or life of the mother, who carries that life, is threatened.
The weakness, from my perspective, is that the definition of "health" is too broad and not restrictive enough. No one at committee, or in debate, ever argued that abortion should be a form of birth control and we do not want it to be. I will be supporting those amendments that restrict abortion to those circumstances where, in the opinion of a medical practitioner, the life of the mother is threatened.
The committee, in preparing its report, heard numerous witnesses and much testimony. As did many other members of the House, I accepted the opportunity to sit in and participate in the committee when the opportunity allowed. It was an emotional and draining experience. Those who sat throughout all of the hearings have my admiration.
During one of my visits to the committee, a presentation was made by a group called Women for Social Justice. This group will not agree with my position in its entirety, but I would like to quote two statements from their brief to the legislative committee. They said, first: "It is a strength of Bill C-43 that it acknowledges that all society has an interest in unborn persons".
It is not enough in this issue just to talk of women's rights. We cannot perpetuate the myth that men have no responsibility. Indeed we have legislated rights, but all too often we have ignored the requirement that we have to accept responsibility for our actions. If this country is going to continue to reflect the values it was built on, we

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
must understand and accept the fact that responsibility must precede rights.
One of the values our society has always respected is the value of life and I pray that we will strengthen our law to the extent of respecting the value of the life of the unborn as well.
In their presentation to the legislative committee, Women for Social Justice also said: "It is the function of the criminal law to symbolize our social ideals. Abortion is an issue about the most basic social value and therefore belongs in the central document of our law, codifying community commitment".
Another group representing Catholic Bishops stated, referring to the committee, but it would apply equally well to the House today as we consider these amendments, that our recommendations will be a statement about the values that Canadians place on human life.
Reflecting on this, I would suggest that no stronger statement could be made about the value that Canadians place on life and on the importance of the rights of the individual than guaranteeing the rights of those who are most vulnerable and protecting their right to life. Even with the proposed amendments we do not guarantee the right to life for the unborn, but we can make a strong statement about the value Canadians place on life and establish legal recognition of unborn persons. I would encourage all hon. members of this House to respect life and support those amendments that provide more protection for the unborn.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind members, first, of what I said in this House when I spoke against Bill C-43 last November. I said that to those of us who are older, life itself takes on a new meaning. I, as a farmer, go out in the spring of the year to the fields and pastures and see life all about us. We see the birds, the animals, the new growth, the trees, the grass and the flowers, and there is a sense of nearness to one's Creator, the Creator of human life, of life itself.
This debate is about human life, the lives of unborn children. I ask the members of this House to consider the lives of these unborn children above all else.
You will note that the Scriptures never talk about the foetus, they always talk about the child in the mother's womb. An example is Isaiah 49.15: "Can a woman forget
the infant at her breast, or a mother the child of her
womb?"
I want to draw to the attention of this House that in the preamble to our Constitution it is stated that Canada was founded on principles recognizing the supremacy of God and the rule of the law. I accept those principles, but I further believe in the sanctity of human life and I will work and fight to protect the rights of the unborn. Bill C-43 does not offer any protection to those rights.
I commend my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott- Russell who brought in Motion No. 10. Motion No. 10 would delete the word "health" as a reason for abortion. This would mark a substantial change in the nature of Bill C-43. If amended by Motion No. 10, the passage of Bill C-43 would be a clear indication that Parliament does not want the lives of unborn children placed at risk or to have those lives snuffed out.
The passage of Motion No. 10 would be a step in the right direction. Without the passage of Motion No. 10, Bill C-43 would simply remain a formula for abortion on demand. We would regard a vote for Bill C-43 in these circumstances, regardless of any other amendments passed, as unacceptable.
I certainly commend my colleague from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell on his amendment to this bill and for his endeavours to give some protection to the lives of unborn children.
It is interesting to note that Nurses for Life recognize abortion as the taking of an innocent human life and advocate legislation to protect the youngest members of the human family. It is interesting that this group of nurses and many doctors feel very strongly about this issue.
I want to quote from a letter from a family practitioner in my riding. He says:
I feel very strongly that this Bill C-43 is merely a method of fully legalising abortion on demand. In saying "-a medical practitioner who is of the opinion that-the health-of a female person would be likely to be threatened" and then that "-health includes- psychological health - " the act opens the way to any physician to perform any abortion on the pretext that continuing the pregnancy would endanger her psychologically.
In Britain, about 20 years ago, a very similar bill was introduced with the additional factors of requiring two doctors and a gestational limit. This law immediately resulted in abortion on demand with no practical redress.
May 22, 1990

This approach totally ignores the right of the unborn human being to life. This is a God-given right which the state cannot morally take away.
As a physician of 25 years' qualification I should like to mention that I have never seen or heard of a case in which the mother's life was lost by continuing her pregnancy when in the natural place of within the uterus. Occasionally we do see ectopic or tubal pregnancies which are not in the natural site but usually these are only diagnosed after the baby has already been lost.
As I mentioned earlier, as we look at the events unfolding around us in the world today at this time of year, a season when we have the creation of life all around us, it is very ironic that we as the Parliament of Canada are debating a bill that would end life, particularly human life.
I want to quote from another letter. It says:
Before Bill C-43 has its third reading, I would like to express my concerns regarding this bill. Bill C-43 has been characterized as a compromise between the pro-abortion position and the pro-life position. In actual fact, however, it virtually opens a door to abortion on demand. For it is a known fact, that abortions can easily be obtained when they are allowed for so-called health reasons. Even the restrictions "physical, mental and psychological" will not prevent this, for they are too general and too vague.
It goes on to say:
I urge you to withdraw this bill and to give our country an abortion law that protects all of Canada's children from the moment of conception. Only when you do that can we expect God to look down upon our country in favour and grant us His blessing.
It is signed by Reverend Dick Moes of Strathroy, Ontario.
I have another letter that I want to read. It is from an RNA from Kitchener, Ontario. She says:
I am writing to you as an adoptee. When I was 3 months old, I was officially adopted, and have had 19 wonderful years with my adoptive parents. One thing really bothers me: when I was still in the womb, my biological mother could have aborted me, and although it was 1969, abortions were still available.
I think of how my life could have been ended in a few short minutes, before I'd seen my first sight. How then can we actually stand back and allow leniency in the laws for abortion, when millions of unborn children will never see the light of day.
I implore you to see how fragile and precious life is, and how innocent the foetus is, no matter what circumstances their conception comes from. Please -life is so important-say no to abortion. Sincerely,
Government Orders
How can we ignore this, particularly at this time of year when we have a bill like this one before us. Certainly my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell realized the implications or he would never have brought forward an amendment such as Motion No. 10.1 believe it has to be included or we have to turn down this bill as practically no law at all or it would allow abortion on demand.
We have to look at the conscience of this nation and look to the preamble of our Constitution, when it was pointed out so very clearly that Canada was proud of those principles recognizing the supremacy of God and the rule of the land. My plea here today is to ask members of Parliament to make sure that those two principles are not in conflict: one is God's teaching which reflected the supremacy of God and the other is the rule of the land and the decision of this Parliament with regard to this bill that hits so close to the hearts of all of us here today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this motion and to say again that I am opposed to this bill unless it is amended with Motion No. 10 which my colleague has put forward in this House.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to speak further on this subject.
I put forth Motion No. 17B which dealt with the definition of health and read:
"physical and menial health, and does not include psychological".
My amendment was part of two others put forth by the member for Kitchener and the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. They were both as well pro-life amendments. I also support, as I said earlier in the day, Motion No. 10 put forth by the hon. member from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell.
In speaking on the amendments I want to make the point and share some thoughts on why I believe Bill C-43, even if it is not amended, is better than no legislation at all. If Bill C-43 is defeated, it will be years or decades before any government will have the political will to take the initiative and present proposed legislation to the House.
With the expected rapid developments in reproductive technologies, we may never again debate an abortion bill in this House. Amendments may be proposed and passed

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
to existing legislation, but we cannot make amendments if no bill exists. If some of us like myself are not happy with Bill C-43, we could look forward in the future to some amendments.
Several pro-life supporters have told me that I would be breaking my word if I voted for Bill C-43.1 want to say that those comments have disturbed and distressed me, but I have given the issue a great deal of thought. I have had many discussions and written correspondence with constituents. I have discussed the issue extensively in Ottawa with my pro-life colleagues and I have prayed about the issue. I believe for a number of reasons that it is better to have Bill C-43 than nothing at all.
I would like to quote from a book prepared by the Law Reform Commission entitled Rights of the Foetus in which it answers the question: Why the criminal law? It reads: "Through our criminal law we express the kind of society we believe in and the values we uphold. In our working paper 58 Commissioner Maingot, in his dissent, summarizes what criminal law means to us. 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 book continues: "By using the criminal law power as the basis for a new law on abortion, we are enshrining a certain set of values, which in part describes the kind of society we are".
A second quote I would like to read into the record concerns another paragraph by the Law Reform Commission. It deals with the role of the Criminal Code in our society. It reads: "In truth, the criminal law is fundamentally a moral system. It may be crude, it may have faults, it may be rough and ready, but basically it is a system of applied morality and justice. It serves to underline those values necessary or else important to society. When acts occur that seriously transgress essential values like the sanctity of life, society must speak out and reaffirm those values. This is the true role of criminal law".
It should also be remembered that if we leave a legislative void some provinces will feel obliged to pass an abortion bill. In theory, we could have a patchwork quilt of provincial abortion laws. I find this possibility
unacceptable. Whatever abortion legislation we have should be uniform across the country.
In conclusion, as a pro-lifer we have at least three prime conditions. First, we must have a law on this area and it must be in the Criminal Code. Second, there must be provision for criminal sanction against an unlawful abortion, and that is in Bill C-43. Third, we must have protection of new life from conception or implantation. While not totally acceptable, these three conditions are in Bill C-43, but it should be noted that no gestation period is mentioned. I urge all hon. members to support Motions Nos. 10, 12, 13, and 17B.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to have the opportunity to place some of my thoughts on the record with respect to Bill C-43.
At the outset I want to say that I find the issue of abortion troublesome, complex, and intensely personal. I am very thankful to be in a position to cast a vote against Bill C-43 according to my conscience. I cannot afford the women of Canada anything less than to allow them to decide the issue according to their consciences.
I note that there are members opposite who normally support this government who have chosen to follow their consciences and vote against this government bill. They are doing so because they feel it is the right thing to do according to their consciences. For some reason they will not extend that same privilege or right to the women of Canada. I find that very difficult to understand.
What is this debate all about? I think it is really about who should decide the issue of abortion. It has nothing to do with one side having more respect for life than the other side. One side of this issue calls itself pro-life, while the other side calls itself pro-choice. In my long years of professional life I worked with hundreds of pro-choice women. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they have just as much respect for life as those who call themselves pro-life.
It certainly has nothing to do with abortion on demand, a term that I find insulting, to tell the truth. I think it is an affront to women. I know of no woman who would equate the seeking or the contemplation of abortion with just another item on a shopping list. Yet, when people use that term, in effect they are saying that women
May 22, 1990

would look upon seeking an abortion just like buying something at the store.
Who should decide the issue of abortion? When all the rhetoric and arguments are cut away, who is going to decide? Is it the woman or the state? I can say truthfully and with all candour that I come down on the side of the woman.
Abortion is intensely intimate, intensely personal, and intensely complex. I cannot think of anyone in a better position to decide the delicate, troublesome issue than the woman. She is in the best position.
How can we come down on the side of an intrusive state? Where is the state in this matter? If we give the state the right to decide on the issue of abortion, it would have to do it from the position of one act or one law. It would have to make the profound decision at a distance, remotely. I cannot believe for a moment that even if we consider the odds the state could anywhere match the judgment of a woman who has to live with this matter from the moment of conception. I will choose the woman in this matter.
A woman is not perfect. She is a human being like the rest of us. She is not perfect. If you cannot trust a woman, who can you trust? Women are our mothers. If we cannot trust women about something as sacred as life, when it comes to unborn babies, when it comes to foetuses, who can we trust? I cannot believe that there are those who would trust the state before trusting the women of this world.
It is normal for women to have babies. It is normal for women to want to carry their pregnancies to full term. When a woman contemplates abortion she is sending out a very disturbing signal. She is saying that despite the fact God has given her the capacity to bring life into the world, she feels she cannot cope. There is something there that prevents her from bringing life into the world. I have to respect that judgement. I have to honour women.
Let us not forget that this issue really is a part of history, part of a continuum. There was a time when we did not trust women with the vote. We did not trust women to work outside the home. We did not trust women to enter professional classes. We thought they were best at home looking after the children or playing the part of housewife and housekeeper. We did not want them in managerial positions. In fact, there are still not
Government Orders
many women in managerial positions today. We certainly did not want women to control the purse strings in the home.
Women have been partly emancipated over the past number of years and what have been the results? Is the world poorer? Is our society poorer because women have gone out to enter professional ranks, managerial ranks and achieve equality with men in some areas? I do not think so.
I am opposed to this bill because it does not contribute in any way to the emancipation of women. Women have come a long way but they still have a great distance to go.
I had a mother who belonged to a generation of women who were very repressed. My mother was good enough to bring 14 children into the world. She helped raise 12. I suspect she pretty well raised them on her own. I was number 11. She was good enough to work around the clock, day and night, to raise these children. She was good and noble enough to serve as a wife. She was good and noble enough to serve as an unpaid servant of the family. She was perhaps the finest woman I ever knew and probably will ever know. What did she get in return? She got love from all of us. But, she could not participate in the major decisions of the family.
We were raised on a farm. Despite all the noble deeds, did she have a right to participate in the major decisions of running the farm? Not on your life. Did she have the right to participate in major spending decisions? Not on your life. While she would never have contemplated it, if she had ever thought for a moment about abortion or divorce or anything like that, her thoughts would not have been considered for a moment, because when it came to issues like that she was a second class citizen. I remember in those days how powerless my mother was and it was mainly because she was a woman. She was not entitled to participate in those major decisions.
I have heard a number of members today talk about the need to protect the foetus. I do not think anyone would disagree with that, whether they call themselves pro-choice, pro-life, or anything in between. We all want to protect the foetus, we all want to protect the unborn, we all want to protect life, we all want to respect life. I suggest that the best way to protect the unborn is to protect their mothers. One does not protect the foetus

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
through the Criminal Code, through some coercive law. We protect them by protecting their mothers.
That is another reason why I am against C-43. It does nothing in the way of providing community support. There is nothing in it dealing with child care. There is nothing to indicate that society will help women; that the community will help a woman to have her baby by providing the assistance she needs.
If we as a society want to protect the unborn, as we should, then let us protect the women and let us protect the mothers of the unborn.
I simply want to say in conclusion that a decision about abortion is complex and personal and intimate. We must leave it to the women. We have to learn to respect women and to trust their judgment. If we do that we will do more to protect life and the unborn than the state ever could.


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentarians we have a responsibility to shape and enact a law that will respect human life from conception to natural death. I oppose abortion, the killing of the unborn. The so-called progressive-minded people who promote the concept of free abortion on demand are contravening the laws of nature and God.
I rise to support Motion No. 10 submitted by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. With the removal of the word "health" the clause would read: "If the abortion were not induced the life of the female person would be likely to be threatened."
The inclusion of the word "health" in Bill C-43 opens the door to many abuses, as happened with the former abortion bill in 1969. Its interpretation is open to many flimsy excuses as a justification for termination. When the word "health" is present, there is a need to define what it means. The plain fact is that it is extremely rare for a pregnant woman's health to be seriously in jeopardy as a result of pregnancy.
There may be other factors causing a health problem. In those instances the medical profession is already aware that they have a responsibility to treat that health problem without making a direct intervention on the life of the child. In the 1969 legislation all kinds of interpretations of health came into play, resulting in abortions being performed for reasons that were not always valid.
In the last 20 years, the large majority of abortions performed in Canada have been for reasons of convenience only, having nothing to do with the real meaning of health. I refer to the Badgley report on the operation of the abortion bill. It states: "In the majority of cases, stating that pregnancy is a danger to the patient's physical health is nonsense as there is no real threat to the patient's health if the pregnancy goes on."
Let us stop playing games with words by hiding the true reason for the slaughter. It is not for reasons of health, but rather for convenience. We must speak out for the sanctity of life.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendments put forward on this bill.
Before I address specific amendments, I would like to outline again for the House my own philosophical position on the issue. I think it is very clear that the decision a woman makes about an abortion is very personal and intense. It is a difficult issue. It is not done frivolously as some people in this House have suggested, and it is not done without due consideration. It is an agonizing decision.
The decision to have an abortion is a private issue that should not be subject to public or legal scrutiny and certainly should not be subject to legal sanction of the woman or her doctor. I have some understanding for those who oppose abortion under any circumstances because of moral conviction, but I cannot agree with them. They are at least consistent in their belief that under no circumstances should there be an abortion.
This bill is based on a fundamental concept that we, in this House, are able to make a decision on when a woman should have an abortion and that we are in a better position to make a more rational, moral and correct decision than that woman. I cannot agree with that. The women of Canada are totally competent to make the decision as to when they should have an abortion.
We do not know all the circumstances that they are going to be facing. We do not know the circumstances of their health or economics, and we do not know the circumstances or the dynamics of their families. A woman must take all these things into consideration

May 22, 1990

when she makes that decision. We think we can sit here and prejudge the circumstances under which a woman will be allowed or denied access to a medical abortion, perhaps forcing her to seek an abortion elsewhere.
Perhaps we should consider how we arrived at the position in which we now find ourselves. In 1988, the Supreme Court struck down the previous legislation. In doing so, Justice Wilson stated that the right to reproduce or not to reproduce, which is the issue in this case, is one such right, and is properly perceived as an integral part of a modem woman's struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being.
This legislation is not about allowing a woman to assert her worth and dignity as a human being. Chief Justice Dickson stated that by interfering with bodily integrity, forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus, is an infringement on the security of persons.
My philosophy is that it is a woman's right, and that she is the person best able to make that decision. Canadian women have the strength, intelligence, integrity, and, most of all, the right to decide when and under what circumstances they will bear children.
One of the reasons I think people oppose the position of pro-choice is that they think by putting in criminal sanctions it will deny women the right to have an abortion. That is not the history of Canada. It is not the history of any country that has had criminal legislation prohibiting abortion.
Prior to being elected, I worked in the social services field. I worked with poor women and street women. I worked with women who, because of various circumstances, found that they were not in a position either to wish or to be able to go through with a pregnancy. They were forced to seek abortions outside the law.
I have known women who have died from having abortions performed by unqualified practitioners. I can assure the House that, no matter what law is in place, women in urban centres, women with money, will always
Government Orders
get abortions. They will get them from medical practitioners. They always have.
It is the poor women who must to seek non-medical abortions. It is women in isolated and rural areas. It is women who do not understand the law, social agencies, and organizations who will be forced to seek illegal abortions. The sophisticated woman, the woman with money, the woman in the urban centre, is not going to be deterred by any piece of legislation that the House passes.
If the government really wanted to have an impact on abortions, then instead of trying to criminalize abortions again it should look to tiying to provide support for women. First, it should provide more support so that a woman has a choice as to whether or not she should become pregnant. She should have better information and better access to birth control.
Then, we must make it possible for the woman to make a choice in the true sense about whether she wishes to proceed with a pregnancy. We must provide her with child support, day care, and adequate wages. In this country, women are still paid only 66 per cent of the wages of men. We have to provide adequate housing so that she is able to say: "I am going to be in a position to raise this child in a secure environment".
But what has the government done? It has done everything it can to undermine the ability of women to make that choice. It has done away with the concept that it is going to bring in a universal child care program.
The government has made an absolute shambles of the housing program so that we now have an increasing number of Canadian families being forced into poverty because of inadequate housing. Housing is one of the main indicators of poverty in the country and we still have 1.2 million people living in poverty.
The government has put a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan, the social services network that can provide not only income support services to women but counselling services and such things as alternate home care for teenagers facing pregnancy. It has simply said that it is going to turn its back on the disadvantaged, the poor, and the person who is not socially and economically powerful. Then, at the same time, it wants to say: "We are also going to restrict your access to abortion".
I will close by saying that I will be opposing all of the amendments, except the amendment proposed by my

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
colleague from New Westminster. Hers is the only amendment that will protect the dignity and worth of women in the country.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I want to intervene just briefly in this debate since I have already spoken my piece at second reading. I will not belabour the issue for long.
I do want to make it clear that I will be voting against this legislation. I will be voting against it because I believe in the sanctity of human life, and I mean all human life, from the moment of conception until natural death.
It strikes me as rather odd that we go through such extensive routines in the case of criminal activity to make sure that there is no miscarriage of justice. Yet we have before us a bill that says a life can be snuffed out by the decision of one person. I believe that is wrong. I believe that that is virtually abortion on demand. I believe that life is more sacred than that and that it deserves more protection.
Once we open the door to abortion, we are opening a Pandora's box that will be very difficult to close. We insist that every perpetrator of a crime-and I am repeating this because I think it is very important- every perpetrator of a crime has every access to the law. Yet, the government is bringing in a law that gives absolutely no protection to the human foetus, which is a fully human being except that it is not yet able to sustain itself. It has all the characteristics and all the attributes of a human being from the moment of conception. Therefore, in my opinion, it deserves full protection of the law from that very moment of conception until its natural death.
We have heard a lot of argument here about how onerous pregnancy is for the woman and, indeed, in some cases it is. But, in this day and age, there are the methods and access to methods of limiting the size of families. It would seem to me that we should be putting the emphasis and the education on that aspect of limiting family size, rather than expending all our time and efforts trying to find a way to kill the unborn child legally. I do not believe there is a way. I will not vote for this bill.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address our government's proposed abortion legislation. It is a bill of some significance because the principle on
which it is based reaches down and touches the very conscience of our nation. It makes a statement about the definition of life and lays out sanctions that symbolize our value of life.
During my years here, I have gone on record as one who believes that life begins at conception and at that miraculous point it acquires intrinsic worth and value. I am convinced therefore that from this point life should be protected and abortion allowed only when the life of the mother is threatened.
My position today remains unchanged. It is an extension of my desire to develop an anti-abortion consensus in our society.
I have no reason to believe that this consensus does not exist in the riding of Souris-Moose Mountain which I have the privilege to serve. Over the last months I have received 541 letters in favour of this position and two against.
This position is based on sound medical evidence. Those things which indicate life and determine who we are as individuals are present from conception. Clearly, we in this Chamber cannot ignore these facts. They are evidence which require a verdict in favour of truth and in favour of life.
Bill C-43 makes a statement about the truth of life. I am glad that it implicitly recognizes that life begins at conception by placing a criminal sanction against the taking of foetal life. In doing this, the law symbolizes our value and belief in the worth of life.
I might say at this point that I was pleased to see that the gestational approach is not in the bill, but that it does recognize the worth of life. The worth of life is not determined by its validity, its potential, whether it is wanted or not, or whether it will be productive to society or not. If these factors are allowed to determine the value of life before birth, how will we decide what protection life will be guaranteed after birth? We must acknowledge life as intimately valuable.
So, in giving the right to life to the unborn, we preserve life for all, honourable in what we give and what we preserve.
Having said that the bill is sound in principle, I am disappointed in its provision which lays out the conditions under which abortions would be permitted. The bill permits abortion not only for the legitimate reason of the
May 22, 1990

life of the mother, but for health reasons broadly defined as physical, mental and psychological.
I am deeply concerned that this definition of health is wide open to abuse. I am unhappy that it might allow abortions for reasons of convenience.
However, Bill C-43 does indicate that the mother and the doctor must make a moral choice. For this reason I have searched my heart long and hard. I have come to the conclusion that, because it is sound in principle, I will support this bill with reservations and with the vital hope and desire that it can be improved upon if not now, then at some time in the future.
As a Canadian parliamentarian I have two goals. It is my strongest desire as a parliamentarian to protect the value of life in law. But as a Canadian I have a strong desire to see a reorientation of our society to a view where abortions would be unthinkable. In fact, the two goals go hand in hand. Restricting abortions is easy when it is based on the wider consensus about the value of life.
I would go further to suggest to our pro-life friends that, while we in Parliament do our jobs, their efforts must be more directed to the building of a consensus. This can only be done through compassion and law. Our churches, organizations and we as individuals need to show a new direction that upholds concern over confrontation and that is marked by compelling compassion. We need to be part of the solution by building social, spiritual and physical support networks to serve the needs of the family and the single parent.
We cannot let it be said that our love ends after we succeed in entrenching pro-life legislation. If, while we fight for pro-life law, we lose sight of the greater compassionate purpose, then the law would be worthless.
Therefore I am pleased to say that I do support the protection of the foetus. While I am not completely supportive of the legislation, I believe that at this time it is the best that can be achieved under the circumstances that exist. I believe that a law is important.
I say to those who agree with me that one day we will achieve pro-life legislation. I do not believe for a minute that it is going to come with one stroke of a pen. As we are educated to the great miracle of life and the great
Government Orders
responsibility of protecting it, I believe one day we will have this legislation. I believe that the pro-life movement has to look forward in a positive way to directing its emphasis on how best this can be accomplished. It may be one step at a time, but that is my goal. I believe it should be the goal of all Canadians.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this very important debate on an issue of fundamental importance, not only to the people of my riding but to all Canadians.
I want to begin by saying that I will be voting for the pro-life motions that were introduced earlier today. In particular, I will be supporting the motion which would restrict abortion to situations in which the life of the mother is threatened.
Second, I will be supporting the body of motions which would strengthen the health definition contained in the bill in order that that particular definition may limit, as far as possible, the circumstances in which abortion would be permitted.
I will be voting for those motions and expecting a number of them to carry in order to consider voting for the bill at third reading. In my view it is the only philosophically consistent approach I can take. It is the only approach which is consistent with a rigorous examination of what it is to be human, what it is to be Christian, what it is to believe in the sanctity of life and to support life in our laws, in our social customs and in our institutions.
However, I want to say at the outset that I would not like to have this be a blind pro-life versus a pro-choice distinction which is governing my decision in this matter. I believe that the dichotomy between these two points of view is far too simplistic an approach to understanding what is a very complex issue.
In fairness, I do not believe that those who proclaim themselves to be pro-choice are actually in favour of abortion. Likewise, I do not believe that those who proclaim themselves to be pro-life are against any form of choice, against the responsibility of women, against women, or against their particular freedom because they advocate restrictive legislative bounds on abortion.

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
I believe that the way to understand the principle of legislation to restrict abortion is in terms of social responsibility. We can regard laws as a curtailment or a restriction on human freedom, just like we could regard this particular law as a restriction on the choice or on the freedom of women, but I would rather see the law be regarded as a support for responsible social behaviour.
Seen in that light, it is no different than seeing, for example, seat-belt laws as legislation which restricts our freedom but, at the same time, encourages people to responsible social behaviour, just like other laws which, for instance, have imposed severe sanctions on consumption of alcohol while driving a motor vehicle. Those laws which have been introduced over the past few years, including social proscriptions, have also been an inducement to responsible social behaviour. And I think there is a way of understanding a restriction on abortion in that respect.
We must see, as a society, legislation which will encourage not only women, but men as well, to view the consequences of their actions, and particularly, in this case, into the sexual sphere, before they get into situation. The law has to support responsible conduct in this regard, realizing, of course, that situations in life will always make it difficult and will pose challenges for us as human beings when confronted with standards which would be established by, for example, a restrictive abortion law.
That having been said, I would like now to comment on some of the proposed motions of other hon. members, particularly those about which I feel most strongly.
Motion No. 16, which has been grouped for debate with my own, adds that a health risk must be a serious one. I agree. Requiring that the health risk be a serious one eliminates as a reason for abortion many of the quite normal physical and mental discomforts which often accompany a pregnancy.
I must stress again that any abortion law must be accompanied by a range of programs which address difficulties like the ones that have been mentioned by other speakers. Counselling services and medical advice must be available and accessible to all Canadian women. We must adopt a broad policy to effectively reduce abortions in Canada. A law by itself is insufficient and I
will speaking to that question at a later time, Mr. Speaker.
The last resort amendment, which is that abortions are only a last resort, must be accompanied by my own which narrows the health definition. What medically acceptable alternative treatment is there for psychological, socioeconomic factors such as being poor or being afraid to tell one's parents? Would treatment by a financial adviser or by a school counsellor constitute medically acceptable treatment to alleviate the health risk? This amendment is meaningless to me unless accompanied by a more restrictive definition of health.
Motion No. 13 interests me as well. It states that abortion be the treatment of last resort to alleviate the health risk to the mother.
The Canadian Medical Association has stated that abortion reflects a distasteful failure of the education and medical system. Abortion is a regrettable last resort treatment.
This last resort amendment must be accompanied by my own which limits the health definition to mental and physical. This amendment is meaningless to me unless a medically acceptable alternative treatment is found for psychological factors, such as being poor or afraid to tell one's parents.
Motion No. 19 expands the definition of opinion. The Canadian Medical Association has called Bill C-43's definition of "opinion" rather useless. Bill C-43 indicates that the medical communities practice acceptable standards deemed appropriate for formulating an opinion regarding abortion.
So why has the government bothered to insert it into the legislation? In my view, unless opinion is given additional and more defined meaning, insertion of its definition into Bill C-43 is useless.
In closing, Bill C-43 is in dire need of amendment. Motion No. 17A, which I have proposed, is only a minor change, but serves to clarify and strengthen the section of the bill which I feel is in need of repair. I cannot emphasize enough the urgent need of a broader policy on abortion in Canada, one which does not simply put a line into the Criminal Code but adds a program which will effectively reduce and hopefully eliminate the number of abortions in Canada.

May 22, 1990


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am not pleased to be rising this evening to participate in this debate on the amendments to Bill C-43, an act regarding abortion.
I have listened with a growing sense of outrage to the statements by the men who are proposing, in total, 13 amendments. All of their amendments would make an already punitive bill even more so.
I try to insulate myself from that anger. I struggle to keep my temper in the face of these horrendous insults to women. I hope this evening to keep my temper sufficiently in order to speak clearly on this issue.
Earlier in today's debate the Minister of Justice told this House that the bill is a compromise, a fragile balance between a woman's right to control her own body and foetal rights. This is an outrageous statement coming from the woman given the honour of being the chief lawmaker in Canada.
Does the Minister of Justice not know that foetal rights have not been defined? The Supreme Court in the Daigle decision acknowledged that fact. The minister's statements this afternoon only served to exacerbate the confusion over this bill.
I will agree with the minister that Bill C-43 is a compromise, but the word compromise infers a solution. In this instance the so-called compromise is anything but a solution. It serves to mark a compromise of principle while moving us further from a solution.
If members of this Chamber were sincere in their wish for a real solution, they would be devoting much greater energy to the issues of equality for women, child poverty, reproductive health and education. They would be urging that greater resources be allocated for research into safe and effective means of birth control.
As a woman, I have had first-hand knowledge with that. When I was pregnant with my son, who is now 17 years old, I participated in a family planning clinic and took birthing classes. Of the 10 white, middle-class couples in that class, all well-educated people, six were there because of failed birth control. If this country really cared about stopping abortion, it would be putting more money into research into effective means of birth control.
Government Orders
I am ashamed of the ignorance that has been displayed in this Chamber on this issue. When I speak of ignorance I am giving those who speak the benefit of the doubt. If it is not ignorance, then it comes down to a conscious exercise of power, men utilizing their power over women. That is a very frightening and sinister prospect. Pregnancy is a wondrous process. It is wondrous for both women and men, but women are the only ones who can actually experience it. Some have argued that men are in awe, in fact resentful of that fact, that they have used their power to attempt to control the reproductive power of women. These men depict women as wanton creatures, morally deficient creatures, requiring threat of criminal sanction to keep them in line. It is this insulting assumption which is the basis of this law.
Some of the sanctimonious statements I have heard from men in the House today are trotted out as truisms, as items not considered by women facing an unwanted pregnancy. That is utter hogwash.


Dawn Black: Absolutely.


Lynn Hunter: Women facing an unwanted pregnancy do not need the advice of men in this House. I urge the members of this House, if they really truly respect women, to support the only amendment worthy of consideration, that is Motion No. 24 put forward by my honourable colleague-and I say that in the most sincere way-the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my brief remarks on Bill C-43 relating to abortion by saying that for all members of the House of Commons, it is a difficult decision. I hope all members will make the decision bearing in mind the interests expressed across Canada against abortion and in favour of women's choice.
It is not a decision one can make lightly. I do not accept the political ideology that we have just heard in the House of Commons from that member of the NDP and other members who put it on a basis of no decisionmaking, the decision is made. That is not true. The decision has to be made by members of the House based upon their own view of life in Canada and the social values of Canadians in their own constituencies, across the regions and throughout the country. It is not a decision to be made lightly. I want you to know, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
May 22, 1990
Government Orders
Speaker, I have put a great deal of thought into the process.
First, I want to make clear that the decision I made for myself is that there must be a law in Canada with respect to abortion. The existing situation where we have a void as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is not acceptable to the great majority of Canadians. I say that with respect to the views of those who believe that Canada, and life in Canada, can continue without a law on abortion. I think that is a view people hold with real emotion but, at the same time, it is not a view that I personally can accept. I want to make it clear to all my colleagues in the House of Commons that I believe there must be a law on abortion.
The difficulty is in what should be the content of that law. I think members must realize the legal parameters set down by the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to a law on abortion. It is not possible, in my opinion, for the House of Commons to enact a law that precludes abortion in all circumstances. There must be circumstances in which abortion can be performed. Any law that says otherwise would not meet the tests and the dictates of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is the lawful determining authority under the Canadian Constitution and under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Those who believe that there ought to be a law which totally voids abortion in all circumstances will have to seek an amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That can only be done under very special circumstances. What is at stake in relation to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the protection of the foetus not now recognized under the Constitution. In order to fully protect life as it exists in the foetus, there must be a constitutional amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are dealing with a specific bill relating to abortion law in Canada which must meet the test imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is in that context that we must examine Bill C-43. It is difficult to consider the nature of an abortion law without reviewing one's own feeling in addition to the feelings of the Canadian society as represented in constituencies such as Halifax West and provinces like Nova Scotia and across the country.
In order to respond to what one perceives to be the prevalent view, I think it is difficult to accept the law imposed by Bill C-43. As has been said by so many members, it virtually includes abortion in those circumstances. The only condition would be that a medical practitioner must direct the performance of the abortion
and it must be based on health grounds of the broadest kind.
I am going to look very carefully at amendments proposed by colleagues in the House of Commons that would restrict the definition of health and would add restrictions to the law proposed by Bill C-43. If those amendments do not pass then I, as all members, will be faced with the decision of whether or not to support Bill C-43 or vote to defeat that legislative measure.
Again I repeat that I believe very strongly that we must have an abortion law in Canada. In the few moments available to me today I want to indicate why I would question the provisions of Bill C-43. May I say that I proposed an amendment to Bill C-43 in the House of Commons that would have defined medical facility as an approved hospital or medical clinic and would have required that the kind of abortion permitted under Bill C-43 be performed there.
I am very disappointed that the Chair did not see fit to permit that amendment to be included in the list of amendments relating to the abortion law because I think it is very important to Canadians, particularly in Nova Scotia and my area of Halifax. If abortions are to be performed, they must be performed under very careful circumstances. We have the requirement that a medical practitioner must be involved, but if abortion can be performed anywhere determined by the medical practitioner, that is going to create difficulties.
As is well known, Dr. Henry Morgentaler and perhaps others believed that they should be permitted to perform abortions in a clinic they have established. I am sure if that precedent is established as part of our law, many clinics will spring up across the country for the performance of abortion.
Those who believe in free choice will welcome that change. But for those who want to be extremely careful in determining the circumstances in which an abortion might be allowed, this will pose very grave difficulties. It will be unacceptable to those who oppose abortion, as well as to those who would only permit abortion under limited circumstances.
May 22, 1990

I find it very difficult to support the bill in the absence of a provision restricting the place in which abortions can be performed. In the province of Nova Scotia a law has been enacted to restrict the place in which abortions are performed. That law is now before the courts and there is great danger that if Parliament does not act to restrict the place in which abortions may be performed, provincial laws may be declared invalid once legislation such as Bill C-43 is passed.
This is a very technical legal point but it is one that is going to cause serious difficulty, not only in Halifax and Nova Scotia, but across Canada. I think if there is one thing I glean from conversations with my constituents and Canadians in other places, it is that there should be a law pertaining to abortion. That law must be carefully administered. It cannot be carefully administered unless the places at which abortions are performed are restricted.
In closing, I have the greatest sympathy for those who believe that it is a woman's right, in certain circumstances, to have an abortion. I cannot as an individual and as a member of Parliament accept that view. I do not want to increase the possibility of danger to women in the matter of child bearing. I realize that there should be other measures to avoid situations that result in unwanted pregnancies and I would support any of those measures. For the moment, my position is dear: There must be a law on abortion in Canada and that law has to be carefully crafted in order to ensure that abortions are restricted and that those restrictions are carefully monitored.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose Bill C-43 and all amendments proposed thereto, with the exception of amendment No. 24, standing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
I am not going to dwell on the legalities of the matter. It is not that they are unimportant but because I have only a few minutes. I am not going to argue about the rights of a woman versus the possible rights of the foetus, although undoubtedly that is a question that must be dealt with. I do not think the matter rests at the level of legalities. I want to deal with the underlying moral debate, the reason why some people say and sincerely
Government Orders
believe that we must have a law in the Criminal Code prohibiting and punishing abortion.
The argument, as it is most usually presented, is that abortion is the killing of a person; a person yet unborn but a person. As we have laws to prevent the killing of a person who has been bom, so we should have law to prevent the killing of a person who has not been bom. It is also said on the basis of some very particular traditions that this is contrary to the teaching that we know as God's law. I take God and his law seriously, Mr. Speaker, although I think that there is far more to God than what we call His law, such as laws that have been written down in the Bible and in other books. There is God's creation, God's forgiveness and God's love. The law is really a smaller part than those, and I will come back to that later.
The reason I do not accept the very simple argument as it is put forward is that I do not think it works. Even if I were to accept the view that the unborn is a person and that abortion is there for the killing of a person, I oppose this bill. I oppose it because it will not work. It will not stop abortions no matter how it is amended. Therefore, it causes trouble to no good end. It causes useless trouble to women and doctors.
The reason why I say it will not work is that abortions have been done since the earliest time of our history even though people in those days, as in our days, had reverence for life. It is not reasonable to get hysterical about saying our civilization must not decide to kill the unborn. The shoe is on the other foot. The question is: Have we arrived at the point in our civilization where it is possible that no one will kill the unborn? That is the challenge but it is a very different one.
Abortions have not only been performed in the past, they are performed in our own time, in Christian countries such as Ireland that have ferocious laws penalizing abortionists. There is a high rate of abortion in Ireland as there is in some other countries that are not Christian. In other words, they appeal to what people say is God's law on the matter, but the backing up of that appeal by the threat of prison does not stop abortion. That is a matter of experience and a matter of fact.
When we had punitive laws in Canada they did not stop abortion. They drove it underground. Abortions were done secretly or abroad. When they were done secretly they were often badly done. They succeeded as

May 22, 1990
Government Orders
abortions in killing the unborn but they also at times did great harm, even to the point of killing the mother.
I think a previous speaker summed it up very well when he said that the best way to protect the unborn was to protect the mother. This is assuming that the unborn is a person to which some hold and some disagree. Taken at the point of the strongest argument against abortion, namely the argument that it is a person there in the womb, the best way to protect what is in the womb, person or not, is to protect the woman carrying it.
As a practice to be legislated by us, it is simply not practically possible to protect the unborn against the will of the mother. The only way to do that would be to threaten violence on the mother, and that is bound to have a dangerous effect on the child. We can all imagine the ways in which that may happen. The threat of violence against the pregnant woman might affect the child in her womb, nevertheless the experience of threatened violence against her has not prevented the practice of abortion.
There are other things that can be done. I regret that so much attention is given by some parts of our society in Canada to the negative means, to the threat, to the use of violence either directly or as a threat. It has been pointed out many times in previous debates and again today that there are many women who choose abortion who would not choose it, who would choose to bear the child if they were given the support that would be fitting to the position of people who say we must reverence life.
I have had experience on the Toronto City Council where certain people, who spoke about reverence for life, condemned abortion and Planned Parenthood because they might sometimes give someone advice about how to procure an abortion. There was a five-hour debate about whether to give $500 to Planned Parenthood. Some members said they would not vote for it because they reverenced life.
Those same members of council despised life once it was bom because they also voted against a by-law that would stop landlords from excluding tenants on the ground that they had children. So the unborn have rights but the born have no rights; that is ridiculous. If this House, including the government side, seriously wishes to protect the unborn, it can do far more than this law could ever do. It could provide for the economic and health maintenance of the pregnant woman be she married, unmarried, rich or poor. It could provide for decent medical treatment, which to some extent our country provides better than the United States does for
its poor people. That is one reason why some of us want to keep our economy safe from the American takeover.
It could provide decent housing accommodation for the parent or parents and child. It could provide decent working conditions and could respect the work of women who still carry the huge majority of the work of raising children.
By the laws of our country there is a whole class of women expected to do the work of child raising and housekeeping who are paid rotten, low wages, who are kept in positions of semi-servitude, and who are forbidden even to try to organize a union on their behalf. We call them the immigrant domestic workers. We bring them to Canada because the pay for the work they do is so rotten and the conditions of abuse, sometimes physical or even sexual abuse, are so rotten where they work that Canadian women will not do that work. That shows how this government and this House despise the work of women, particularly the work of raising children.
Until we change that and give decent recognition to the work of raising children, we have no right to threaten violence against a pregnant woman who decides not to bear a child. Therefore, as I say, I would oppose all the amendments that are proposed today, except for Motion No. 24, standing in the name of the hon member for New Westminster-Burnaby. It would simply strike out all the sections that provide for violent penalties against the woman or doctor who take part in an abortion. It will do no good. It will do a great deal of harm. If we are serious as a House, we can do much better.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, earlier I spoke in support of my two amendments which in essence would safeguard the pregnant woman having the abortion based on genuine medical indications.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell whose motion I seconded indicated that a medical procedure had only to be induced by a medical practitioner. It stands to reason that when the procedure to be done will effect the destruction of the unborn, it should be carried out wholly and solely by the physician so that he or she can assume the ultimate medical responsibility.
May 22, 1990

Were we to allow people other than physicians to perform the procedure for genuine, medical indications, first, the indications may not exist. Second, we may franchise abortion clinics across the country. Third, there can be an assembly line for doing abortions. When that happens truly the practice of medicine will be corrupted.
The amendment proposed by my colleague is an attempt to ensure that the physician truly does the procedure and does it according to medical standards.
For the last minute, I cannot help but comment on the information of the previous speaker. He indicated that we do not need this law because it will not work. That is not an argument against introducing a law. There is a law against murder, there is a law against death, and we have not eliminated those offences from this earth. Inability to eliminate offences completely is no excuse not to enact a good law.
The last speaker indicated that many women would not choose abortion if support was given to the pregnant woman so that she would be encouraged to proceed with that pregnancy to term. If that were the true answer to
Government Orders
the problem, why then propose an answer that is no answer at all?
The Supreme Court of Canada, in saying that the state has a legitimate interest to protect the life of the unborn, is telling Canadians that it is part of our rule of law enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I object to this bill being unamended because although it is difficult to compromise the two opposing views it does not really reconcile the two at all. We cannot equate the right to choose on the part of the women versus the right to live on the part of the unborn. Only two lives may be equated, and that is why there is a need to ensure that medical indications are safeguarded and that the one who will do the procedure is a medical practitioner.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being nine o'clock, pursuant to Order made Thursday, May 10, 1990, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.57 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 23, 1990