1990-05-23

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the truckers' association has now set up four roadblocks in Abitibi-Temiscamingue.
These independent truckers are struggling to survive. They are protesting against the fact that truckers from neighbouring provinces and the United States have invaded Quebec and the Abitibi-Temiscamingue area and are competing unfairly against them.
They demand new rates and want better highway controls to be put in place immediately to ensure that truckers from neighbouring provinces and the United States who work in Quebec meet the standards and regulations of the Regie de l'assurance-automobile du Quebec and the Quebec Department of Revenue.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec must consider the demands of truckers in Abitibi-Temiscamingue and throughout the province.


CULTURAL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has pulled the rug from under Manitoba's culture industry. The budget of the Canada-Manitoba Cultural Industries Development Office, CIDO, has been slashed for 1990, but worse still come March 1991, the Conservative government will withdraw
completely its support of CIDO. There will be nothing left.
The federal government has reneged on the commitment it made when the Canada-Manitoba CIDO was created. This is a major blow to Manitoba's cultural industry and economy. It will kill, for example, a young but successful film industry. Producers and technicians will leave the province in order to do their work elsewhere, resulting in the loss of nearly 200 direct jobs. Manitoba's economy will lose more than $7 million in related broad-based economic spin-offs.
CIDO was a success. Why tamper with success? Once again this government is showing its lack of interest in Manitoba and western Canada.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, the government has been trying to pass Meech, not by convincing Canadians, but by threatening them. These threats have not worked. Instead, they have only proven that Meech cannot be sold on its merits.
The threat is Quebec's separation. This is a real issue and may be dealt with eventually, but passing Meech will not make eventual separation any less likely. Defeating Meech will not make it any more likely.
I urge the province of Quebec to recognize that the rejection of Meech Lake is not a rejection of the people of Quebec, but a rejection of the flawed Prime Minister-Bourassa approach to constitution making.
I call upon the Prime Minister of Canada to accept responsibility for the constitutional chaos into which his Meech Lake initiative has led this country and to resign.


CATHOLIC CLERGY
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to offer my sincere congratulations to Father Claude Jobin and Father Jean-Pierre

May 23, 1990
Boivin, respectively, pastor of Sainte-Monique les Saules parish and assistant in the same parish, in my riding.
On June 10, they will both celebrate their twenty-fifth anniversary in the priesthood. That evening, Father Jobin and Father Boivin, whose compassion and generosity towards those who seek their help are well-known, will receive a token of appreciation for their constant involvement in the community.
Thank you both and keep up your wonderful work in the community!
=k =k *


LOW-LEVEL FLIGHTS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my congratulations to the Innu people of Labrador for successfully making their case against the proposed NATO base at Goose Gay.
Perhaps NATO recognized that 40,000 over-flights a year would be destructive to the Innu way of life. Perhaps NATO recognizes that changes in Europe and a reduction in international tensions made the test facility obsolete.
Flowever, it is an unfortunate comment on leadership in Canada that under the Conservative government and in the face of east-west tensions, the Prime Minister himself could ignore the Innu and their land, and insist on proceeding with Canada's bid for the base.
The cancellation of the base does not mean an end to the 7,000 over-flights a year already conducted out of Goose Bay. Under agreement they will continue for another six years.
If Canada wants to create employment in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area, it should embark on negotiations to settle aboriginal claims in the region. Those settlements result in economic independence for native communities, a repatriation of capital to the region, and more jobs for natives and non-natives alike.
If Canada could show sufficient respect for the Innu, it would abandon all low-level test flights in Labrador now.


THE MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau -La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour and privilege of listening to Dr. Israel Shahak, who immigrated to Israel after surviving the siege of the Warsaw ghetto and a Nazi concentration camp. He is now a retired chemistry teacher from the University in Jerusalem.
He gave us his impressions of events in the occupied territories on the West Bank and in Gaza, and spoke with a great deal of concern.
Maybe Canada cannot force the Israeli government into peace negotiations with the Palestinians, but at least, as Canadians, we should realize that there are children and women who have suffered greatly in those occupied territories and who do not have the proper kind of health care.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of such gifted gentlemen who come and tell us what is actually happening, pleading on behalf of the Palestinian women and children, I would ask that the Canadian government at least call upon the Israeli authorities to make sure there is proper medical treatment available in those occupied territories.
sk *	*


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, during the fall of 1986, 11 first ministers met in Edmonton and determined that the next logical step in the constitutional process was to conclude arrangements that would honourably permit Quebec to return to the Canadian family.
Such provisions were achieved several months later at Meech Lake under the inspired and persuasive leadership of our Prime Minister. For the only time in Canadian history 11 first ministers came together in historic agreement.
Prior to ratification of that agreement, elections brought new first ministers to three provinces. They were not a part of the process and concluded that their agendas were more important. But without the prior ratification of the Meech Lake Accord, with or without a companion resolution, there may be no future agendas.
May 23, 1990

Atlantic Canada can ill-afford the political and economic uncertainty that the loss of the Meech Lake Accord will bring. I urge Premiers Wells and McKenna to serve Atlantic Canada's interest, to ensure Canada remains strong by passing and putting Meech behind us in order that we can all look forward with optimism to future constitutional and economic agendas.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed a resolution condemning and deploring racism and intolerance in Canadian society, as reflected in acts of vandalism in cemeteries.
The House has spoken, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder whether this gesture should not go further. A recent study by B'nai Brith points to a 57 per cent increase in racist incidents against Canada's racial minorities last year.
Yesterday, an article in The Gazette reported a series of racist and violent incidents in Quebec and Ontario which occured between May 12 and May 20. In one incident, five "skinheads" assaulted a black youth on Saint-Laurent Boulevard in Montreal. Are these incidents symptomatic of a deeper, underlying malaise? Why now? Why cemeteries? Who are these unknowns who perpetrate such terrible acts? Were these incidents orchestrated?
Mr. Speaker, our responsibility to the victims bids us to ask serious questions.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, will the GST be harmful to the Canadian economy?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, it will. Do 80 per cent of Canadians oppose the GST?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Should the GST be stopped?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Can the GST be defeated?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Liberals in the Senate know how Canadians feel about the GST. Canadians oppose it. The Liberals in the Senate have the constitutional authority to defeat the GST.
On behalf of the New Democratic caucus, I call on the Liberal Senators to do the right thing, the honourable thing, hear the cries of 80 per cent of Canadians and stop the GST. Vote in the Senate today and defeat the GST. You have the right. You have the responsibility. Do it, Liberal Senators.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to serve on the committee that studied the companion resolution to the Meech Lake Accord. It was an experience of politics at its best; three political parties working together for the good of Canada.
I would like to share a personal experience with the House of Commons. While in Vancouver, Mr. Glen Cowan gave testimony before the committee. He and I met later for a private discussion.
This fine, well-read and deeply committed Canadian told me that four decades ago, he and four of his friends voluntarily left for a theatre of war a wide ocean and a continent away.
They risked their lives in the name of Canada. Three of those five men never returned. They are, in the name of freedom and Canada, buried in foreign soil.
Mr. Cowan himself was twice seriously wounded. Every day that he did battle, he knew the great risk involved.
He then, with a burden that comes with painful knowledge, said to me: "If we young people were willing to lay down our lives for Canada, then surely these hold-out provinces can make a political sacrifice in the name of nation-building."
Sir, I concur. The torch is ours to hold high. The most magnificent nation on earth must not fail.

May 23, 1990
Oral Questions FISHERIES
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, yesterday 38 trawlermen travelled by bus from Canso to Ottawa to speak out on the crisis facing their community. They had three messages for this government, and in particular for the Minister of Fisheries.
First, the central problem of the Atlantic fisheries is not too many fishermen chasing too few fish. It is too many powerful fishing boats destroying too many fish at sea. This scandalous practice is occurring at the same time that fish plants in our coastal communities are closing for want of fish to process. This practice has got to stop.
Second, the people of Canso are not responsible for the crisis in which they now find themselves. Canso is a victim of the murky scheme to use declining quotas in the northern cod stock as a pretext for rationalizing this community out of existence.
Third, the solution to the Canso problem is simple. Give back to its fishermen their rightful share of the quota taken from them by National Sea's departure and ensure that the trawlers continue to fish from the Canso port.
This is within the power of the Minister of Fisheries to achieve. It is what the people of Canso have asked for from the beginning. They and I will accept nothing less.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my heartfelt sadness at the anger, fear and intolerance I am seeing and hearing in my country, Canada.
Goodness knows our history is not without blemish. I believe we have tried to learn from our past, and we have tried to build a better Canada for our future generations. I wonder if we have suddenly stopped caring and trusting each other. Why are we responding to perceived fears and threats to our national unity rather than reaching out and embracing the one vehicle that will unite us, the Meech Lake Accord?
By accepting Meech Lake, we do not lose any of the provisions that exist in the Constitution Act, 1982. Instead, we gain by including Quebec in the Canadian family where she belongs.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Canadians are concerned about our constitutional situation. They are concerned about the future of our country. They want assurance that action is being taken to confirm that future.
I understand that Senator Murray has completed his consultations with the provinces and has reported today to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister exactly what proposals Senator Murray took to the provincial premiers. What recommendations has he made to the Prime Minister today? Is the Prime Minister now ready to announce an early First Ministers' Conference to develop a fair and reasonable solution to our current constitutional impasse?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have just finished meeting with Senator Murray who provided me with a veiy extensive debriefing on the 10 very complete meetings he held with provincial premiers across the country over the last three or four days.
It is his judgment that at this time it would be premature to call a meeting of First Ministers. It is his judgment that some of the individuals involved in the process clearly have not seized the magnitude of the problem that is upon us, and that a First Ministers' Conference at this time would be premature. He did, however, a few moments ago leave with me some suggestions that I will reflect upon very carefully because they deal with some interesting ways whereby we may be able to narrow some of the differences and begin the process of bringing some of the parties more closely together.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, my objective is the same as all members of the House. It deals exclusively and principally with maintaining the unity of Canada and finding therein a proper and an honourable place for all of its important component parts and, at this particular junc-
**HSHHMHHnHHIHH
May 23, 1990

ture, principally the province of Quebec. We are searching for an honourable and thoughtful way to do precisely that. As all members of the Elouse would want, I will continue the search right up to the very end to see if we can find a formula that will allow us to make sure that the unity of Canada is firm and irrevocable.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my second question is for the Prime Minister. Canadians will certainly be surprised and disappointed by the Prime Minister's answer to the question on calling a meeting of first ministers.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial premiers, in particular those of Quebec and Newfoundland, said that they are ready to take part in a conference. For example, the Premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, even said yesterday that dialogue is always a good policy. He added, "I do not see how I would serve Quebec's interests by saying that I refuse dialogue with my partners."
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister why he refuses to call a conference when the provincial premiers agree to participate in one. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the time has come to call such a conference, in light of the public statements of the provincial premiers themselves.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that my friend misinterprets Premier Bourassa's statement.
Mr. Bourassa did say that he was not refusing to talk with his partners; it is also true that Mr. Bourassa said that he would not necessarily refuse to participate in a first ministers' conference. But I think he is of the opinion that it would be premature to call such a conference immediately.
Some other premiers have said that of course they would like to have a first ministers' conference, but they think that, under the present circumstances, it might be premature in the next few days.
So I will analyse Senator Murray's proposals to find a formula that could bring the parties together, so that we can have everything in our favour as much as possible. If there is a conference, I want it to succeed. I want the
Oral Questions
conference to succeed as much as possible and not to fail.
We had a failure in 1981 when Quebec was excluded; we do not want that to happen again. We are for the unity of Canada!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that Quebec at the time put forward 23 proposals that were unacceptable to the rest of Canada. He offered that as an explanation for Quebec not yet being a signatory to the Constitution. I hope he will remember the words he used yesterday.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister a specific question. If he is not going to call an early First Ministers' Conference, exactly what is he going to do between now and June 23? Is he telling Canadians he is going to sit and do nothing? If that is the case, certainly Canadians expect more from the Prime Minister to ensure the unity and future of this country.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as a politician myself, I am not offended by the remarks of my hon. friend, but I find it strange that in these circumstances he has failed to resist the temptation to politicize what is a very important national issue.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I just mentioned to my hon. friend that contrary to the implications of his prefatory remarks, it is my intention to meet with Senator Murray later this afternoon to review some quite interesting suggestions that he made that might facilitate the bringing together of the parties in order to narrow the terrain. That process might indeed lead to a fruitful First Ministers' Conference. I think this is clearly what all members of the House are suggesting, not a conference simply for the pleasure of getting everybody together but one that hopefully, not necessarily, but hopefully will wind up with some success.
My friend asks me to remember that I mentioned yesterday the 23 or 24 proposals by a separatist premier of Quebec. Indeed, I remember it well. I ask my friend to remember that I immediately followed that up with a reference to five proposals brought forward by a federalist premier of Quebec, Premier Bourassa, resulting in

May 23, 1990
Oral Questions
the Meech Lake Accord, which was a statement of affection and respect and unity for Canada. That is why we signed the Meech Lake Accord and that is why, in the interests of a united Canada, I hope that that will be ratified by all provinces.

[ Translation j


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Since the Environment Minister has resigned, and since public meetings will begin tomorrow in Winnipeg on the Green Plan for the protection of the environment and the implementation of sustainable development, could the Prime Minister inform the House today who will be Minister of the Environment tomorrow, in Winnipeg?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker. Right after Oral Question Period, I intend to make a public statement to announce who will be responsible for the Department of the Environment. The Canadian government will be well represented at the opening of these meetings.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Prime Minister on his decision. I ask him to confirm to this House and to the public that the decision made in Bergen by the former Minister of the Environment of stabilizing C02 pollution by the end of the century will be the policy of his government as well as the successor to the Minister of the Environment.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend would understand why I would want to examine with great care all communications from Europe by the previous Minister of the Environment-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -including anything in the absence of a final report. My information is that Mr. Lucien Bouchard, as Minister of the Environment, along with his officials, did an exemplary job, as usual, at that conference in Norway. The government of Canada and the Prime Minister were very pleased with his efforts and we
look forward to building on those. Obviously I would want to examine the specific wording of any documents that emanated from that conference with care.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This government is caught in a crisis mentality. Crises often have a negative impact. People tend to panic. We must not lose sight of our objective which is to resolve the constitutional impasse. This must not be done in secret, if we want to end this panic situation.
My question for the Prime Minister is as follows: Could the Prime Minister inform the House of the contents of the text proposed by Senator Murray?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to inform my hon. friend that there is no panic situation in Canada. We have experienced some human problems. The New Democrats think that is funny. We have had a number of problems, a number of challenges of that nature. This happens in a government, but of course the New Democrats have had no experience of the responsibility of running a government. From time to time, prime ministers or governments must- Mr. Speaker, I vigou-rously deny any suggestion that there is a problem, a panic situation in this country. We have human problems and we have political problems. We are faced with a major challenge at the constitutional level. There has been a long debate on the question.
I said it yesterday and I repeat it today: Three years ago, the Government of Quebec signed a document, with all the other provinces and the federal government, to make it part of Canada, and of the Canadian Constitution, a participation to which all parties freely consented, which would make our country united, something we have all wanted since 1981. Finally, we had a document on the basis of which we could all say that we had a strong, united Canada. All Canadians could believe that since the premiers of all the provinces and the Prime Minister of Canada signed that document, Quebecers
May 23, 1990

and Canadians could expect to see this document ratified.
That has not been the case. Since then, three provinces have repudiated the signatures of their premiers who had previously given their consent, which creates a serious problem for Canada. We, the government and the opposition parties, are trying to find a formula that will make it possible for Quebec to again become part of the Canadian family, on terms and conditions that are honourable. I have received no recommendations in writing from Senator Murray. I have received suggestions that will help us maintain the dialogue, continue the dialogue, in order to try to break this constitutional impasse, because I think that all Canadians want to see Quebec become part of our Canadian family again, once and for all.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that the country does not need a history lesson from him but some leadership.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: If he wants to refer to history, then I say to him that surely we have learned something from the process which has taken place.
We are now at the point, as some people have said, of being at five minutes to midnight. We do not want to see what happened the last time when something came out at the last minute and when everyone was asked to agree or disagree with it without there being adequate time.
Surely Senator Murray has taken something to the provinces. There are at least 10 premiers who know something of what Senator Murray has taken to them.
Could the Prime Minister share with this House, at least in general terms if not specifically, what Senator Murray has taken to each of the provinces?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for her question in regard to the specific nature of the problem. I thought that I had answered it before. If I have not, I apologize.
Oral Questions
I tried to indicate to members of the House that in a meeting a few minutes ago with Senator Murray he gave me a full debriefing on the meetings that he held with all provincial premiers.
He indicated that as a result of these series of meetings he did not feel that a First Ministers' Conference at this time could be called in circumstances that would be beneficial and would advance the cause of Canadian unity.
He did however leave with me at the end of our meeting some views as to how I might, in communication with the premiers later on this afternoon, begin the process of seeking anew to limit the areas of disagreement in some of the regions of Canada, for example. I propose to do that after Question Period, to continue our work.
As soon as I have something more specific, and I hope more helpful, to report to my friend, the leader of the NDP, I will be happy to do precisely that.
I also hope she would agree that these remain delicate and difficult negotiations and that they must take place among first ministers. I propose to do that and to try to keep her and all members of the House fully informed.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the Premier of Manitoba has said "a conference is the only way to save the accord", that the Premier of Newfoundland has said "the first ministers must meet immediately", and that the Premier of Quebec has said "let's work together", I say to the Prime Minister, who seems to be indicating that first ministers meeting together will not advance Canadian unity, what will advance Canadian unity? Surely there has to be a basis of discussion.
Is Senator Murray not basing his recommendations on the Charest report? What is the Prime Minister's next plan? Why will he not call a First Ministers' Conference now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I tried to answer that question. I am in no way opposed to calling a First Ministers' Conference. I would just like to call a First Ministers' Conference in circumstances that would advance the cause of unity.
I think most people would agree that we should try to put as many chances on the side of success before a First

May 23, 1990
Oral Questions
Ministers' Conference is called. What Senator Murray has been doing is looking for a basis of accommodation.
The hon. member mentioned a few premiers. Some of the views of those specific premiers in regard to specific important items are antithetical one to the other, province to province, not the federal government. It is very, very important in regard to this list that the work that Senator Murray has been doing be continued to eliminate, to the extent humanly possible, the differences that exist even between premiers-mostly between premiers-before they come together to see if we can eliminate those differences that would prevent a resolution of the matter in favour of Canada.
Surely my friend will understand that what we are trying to do is to get rid of as many differences as possible, trying to put as many chances on the side of success that will guarantee a conference that will ensure the unity of Canada.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
What we saw yesterday in Montreal and Toronto and what we are seeing today in Windsor, Sarnia and other points in Canada is a complete and total frustration by Canadian truckers with not being able to compete with their friends, the American truckers, and they cannot compete right here in Canada.
Canadian truckers cannot compete because of high insurance costs, high diesel fuel costs, high interest rates, maintenance, and the very cost of the rigs themselves.
The minister can do something constructive about this unfair competition. What is he going to do with this unfair competition? When is he going to do it? When is he going to get Canadian truckers rolling again?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's question. I understand the frustrations of those in the Canadian trucking business. I had been aware of this for some time. I had arranged for a meeting with the Canadian Trucking Association. That is to take place in my office tomorrow.
I understand at the same time that the Minister of Transport for the Province of Ontario is meeting with the truckers this afternoon. He has a call into my office. I intend to confer with him afterwards to see if there is some action that can be taken at federal government level to alleviate this situation.
I think that my hon. friend will agree that most of the problems being met are state to state and province to state. Those are the difficulties they are under. We will take whatever action we can to assist them.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that reply. It just so happens that the Minister of Transport for the Province of Ontario is from Windsor. I am told by the most recent report that the automobile industry in Windsor may come to a grinding halt unless we do something about this problem immediately.
What we are saying is that we have to stop this unfair competition. The minister can take constructive action in stopping this unfair competition. He has got to do something about the cabotage that is affecting Canadian truckers.
The simple question is: When will he be prepared to do it? He can do it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we are now down to something we can deal with. I am sure my hon. friend agrees that high insurance rates and high fuel taxes are something that are not completely within our jurisdiction.
When it comes to the question of cabotage, I agree with my friend. He has a point. I will take that matter up with the executive of the Canadian Trucking Association tomorrow afternoon when I see him.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. He is not unaware that the budget tabled on February 20 projected an average interest rate of 11.1 per cent for the year. We are now in May and I would like to ask him whether his government intends to table a new budget as soon as possible to reflect Canadian economic reality.
May 23, 1990


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty facing the Canadian economy has been set out now by the Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and the Canadian Labour Congress.
In view of the fact that an 11.1 per cent interest rate was an absolutely basic premise, and we are now at nearly 14 per cent, does the Prime Minister not understand that we have to make sure that the economy is seen as being strong and well managed, that many influential people who understand the problem are calling for a new budget, that it is urgent that it be introduced as soon as possible, and that it reflect what is really going on in the Canadian economy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend, the finance critic for the opposition, was pleased, as were all members of the House, to see the inflationary pressures in Canada dropping quite impressively in the figures released last Friday. That is good news for Canada. That is what is required before interest rates begin the process of coming down.
My hon. friend is clearly seeking what we all seek, that is, economic growth in a non-inflationary climate.
The fact that we have had some serious signs of decreasing inflation is important good news for Canada, consistent, if I may say, with policies that we have been pursuing with the encouragement of the IMF and the OECD, both respected international organizations which have said that by and large the policies pursued by the Government of Canada are appropriate for the circumstances and will ensure ongoing prosperity and sustained economic growth in a non-inflationaiy climate.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Oral Questions
As I speak, thousands of truckers are blocking major border crossings into southern Ontario. They are protesting, as they said to me on Sunday, the unfair competition which federal deregulation has thrown them into with United States firms, deregulation which is now costing them thousands of jobs.
Will the minister now agree, as I requested over a month ago in a letter to him, to sit down and negotiate with representatives of these truckers so as to save the trucking industry in this country?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's interest in this matter. Contrary to his opinion, rather than ignore his letter and the concerns of the trucking industry, I set about and asked for the meeting myself. That meeting has been arranged for tomorrow.
As I have said, we have received the brief of the Canadian Trucking Association. Certainly what I want to do is find a way if there is one at the federal level, and I specify federal level, to assist the trucking industry.
I would also tell my friend that I do not think the trucking industry wants a great deal of regulation. It wants the freedom to compete, something which is antipathic to the hon. member's party.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the freedom to compete, as the minister puts it, meant that last year 64 per cent of cross-border traffic was handled by Canadians while this year 42 per cent of cross-border traffic is Canadian run. That is not what truckers across this country want.
Is the minister prepared to expand that meeting which he has set up with the truckers' association to include the people who are blocking border crossings, those people who are in various trade unions, those independent owner-operators, those people who are actually facing the fight out on the highways to keep a job for themselves and for their families? Is he prepared to talk with them and start real negotiation on this critical issue?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in approaching this issue we naturally looked for the organization which claims to represent the Canadian trucking industry. I make no comment about independent operators. I think they have a place in the scheme of things.

May 23, 1990
Oral Questions
However we have to start with an organization. We have started with the Canadian Trucking Association. I would like to see what progress we make as a result of that meeting and go on from there.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Last fall the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool requested the federal government to provide some $500 million in special farm financial assistance because of low world prices for grain, high interest rates and so on.
Last week we understand that the federal government agreed to provide something less than half of this amount. I want to ask the minister if he will clarify the situation.
Is it to be paid, as has been reported in the press, on a $5 per seeded acre basis? Will it be paid directly by the federal government, as was done for the Special Canadian Grains Program, or is there going to be a continuation of long negotiations for several more weeks on this matter?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the hon. member has not been listening to my answers in the House.
First, I have indicated that this is a multifaceted problem that has to be dealt with in such a way so as to ensure that the assistance is properly targeted in all the regions of the provinces that are affected.
We engaged in negotiations with the provinces to try to design the most effective program to ensure that those areas that are affected by drought will be given some assistance, and that those areas affected by excessive moisture will be given assistance while recognizing depressed prices.
It is to that end that the federal government put $500 million on the table to negotiate with the provinces. I am pleased to tell the hon. member that at the meeting of ministers of agriculture on Friday we reached an agreement as to the allocation of those funds to the respective provinces, along with some general understanding as to
what programs would be eligible for matching contributions to be considered as part of this over-all plan.
Those negotiations are continuing. I can advise the hon. member that as soon as they are completed on a bilateral basis the money will flow to the provinces and the provinces will design the program as they see fit. We think that that is the most effective way of proceeding.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the minister that even though eight weeks have elapsed farmers still do not know what the criteria for this program will be. In other words, even though they are well into seeding in many areas of the country, they do not know if they are going to be eligible for this assistance or not.
How soon will the federal criteria be available to farmers so that they will know if they are eligible for assistance? How soon can they expect the actual cheques and payments to be made, especially in the province of Saskatchewan which has been affected worse than any other part of the country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, to a great extent that will depend upon the provinces which will be trying to design the program that is most effective for their particular province.
In the case of Saskatchewan my understanding is that the province is considering an acreage payment that will be more or less across the board.
I understand that in Manitoba greater emphasis will be placed on the drought areas of that province.
In Alberta we have had excessive moisture in the northern part of the province and excessive drought in the southern part of the province.
Obviously, what we are trying to do here, with the co-operation of the provinces, is design the most effective program so that the farmers who are in the greatest need will get the most amount of money.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand -Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the tragic financial situation facing apple growers across Canada, particularly in Norfolk County.
May 23, 1990

These growers are forced to compete with subsidized apples from across the border, while at the same time they are facing a government that is unilaterally disarming itself of all subsidies.
How does the government plan to help our apple farmers compete against these unfair trading practices?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, if there is evidence of dumping of apples from our competitors, there are provisions and redress procedures in place. In the case of the United States there is the snap-back provision which was used recently in the case of asparagus.
I should say as well that as a part of the $500 million program some $50 million is being allocated for other crops. Obviously, the horticultural industry would be included in that sector.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, the apple growers in Norfolk County would like to know that they will still be around by the time a marketing agency comes into force.
The last drought assistance program failed to address the real loss apple producers faced, a loss of quality, not quantity, and a subsequent loss of market price.
What assurances can the government give apple producers in Norfolk County and across Canada that programs will be made specifically to meet the needs of the apple producers to help them deal with this tragic situation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Algoma I said precisely that the objective of the federal government was to try to design the programs with the co-operation of the provinces to ensure that assistance will be targeted to those producers and those sectors which are in the most need, and to ensure that they get the most amount of money as soon as possible.
Oral Questions


INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to whomever speaks for the Department of Industry, Science and Technology.
Statistics Canada has released figures which show that foreign ownership of Canadian manufacturing is rapidly approaching 50 per cent. This week's sale of Polysar Rubber to Bayer of Germany worsens the trend, in spite of 1985 legislation that the government promised would preserve by a wide margin Canadian control of this major corporation.
Does that promise still hold, or will Investment Canada once more bear its toothless grin while one more Canadian R and D intensive firm falls into the hands of foreign ownership?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. friend that the Nova transaction is going to be examined by Investment Canada. Of course it has to be proved that it will be of net benefit to Canada before it is permitted.
On the larger question of R and D and of technology transfers, it is interesting to note that 11 of the largest investors in research and development in Canada are in fact foreign controlled companies. They have done a tremendous job.
We have found from 1984 to 1988 that $23 billion of reinvestment in the Canadian economy has come from foreign controlled companies. We have had a higher level of job creation from that sector than we have from the Canadian controlled sector.
What we have is a situation of a tremendously dynamic economy that is enticing foreign investment. It is good for Canada. Investment Canada has its role to review that all acquisitions are of net benefit to Canada.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology has cited foreign ownership of Canadian industries, which StatsCan has said is increasing, as largely responsible for Canada's poor research and development performance.

May 23, 1990
Oral Questions
Will the government act according to its 1985 CDC legislation to stop this trend by enforcing the 10 per cent limit on foreign ownership of Polysar, or will this company, once cited as one of Canada's 10 greatest engineering achievements of the century and whose picture once appeared on the $10 bill, appear on the Deutschmark instead?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really speaking generically of the manufacturing sector. Of course what this government is doing is removing the biggest impediment of all on the manufacturing sector in Canada which we have had for over 66 years-the manufacturers' sales tax. That is the first thing we are doing.
If we take a look at the evidence of foreign controlled companies in Canada, we see a slight pick-up of control of assets in Canada by foreign controlled companies in 1987. Guess why that is, Mr. Speaker. It is because we had a deregulation of a sector of our economy which the opposition has been calling for for 20 years. It wanted more competition against the banks. We brought in financial deregulation. That contributed to more competition in the Canadian economy.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
After years of delays and stalls to replace a deteriorated Salmon River bridge near Truro, Nova Scotia, the National Transportation Agency has instructed CN to replace the bridge and CN has agreed in writing to begin construction.
Will the minister confirm that CN will comply with its original obligation, the National Transportation Agency's order and its own commitment made in January and replace this dilapidated bridge right away?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that CN is prepared to design the structure and go ahead with the construction. The problem is that there is a 75-25 split on the cost of the structure and the upgrading that the province wants. The province, being on the 75 per cent end of the split, is
concerned about that. At the present time we are trying to see if there is a way to meet its concerns and get the bridge constructed.


ITALIAN CANADIANS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Following the federal redress to Japanese Canadians for their internment during World War II, the government invited other Canadians to submit their concerns in the hopes of reaching a fair solution to this tragic time of our history.
Given that the government has had a brief from the National Congress of Italian Canadians since January on the internment of Canadians of Italian origin, without an answer, can the Prime Minister please update the House with a response to the request, what the government is prepared to do about it, and when?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the question. He reminds us all of what I think was quite a glorious moment in the history of the House of Commons when, pursuant to a resolution that I had the honour of bringing forward, after 45 years of neglect, the Japanese Canadians whose rights were trampled upon in the war saw that justice was finally done on behalf of the government of Canada and the people of Canada. I think that was a good moment in Parliament.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I was also offended by the notion that Italian Canadians who had for decades made similar pleas to Ottawa had their pleas go unanswered.
In point of fact, contrary to what my hon. friend says, I responded publicly to the concerns of the Italian Canadian community in Toronto a few months ago when I indicated that the Government of Canada viewed what had taken place to Italian Canadians as most unacceptable, that it was something that should have been dealt with a long time ago and that the Government of Canada was seized of the matter and that we would deal with it, I hoped urgently and efficiently, so as to acknowledge what has been an unfair stain placed upon the Italian community which this House must expunge.
May 23, 1990


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House joins the Prime Minister in clearly recognizing that that day in the last Parliament when we recognized those injustices in a very profound way was truly a parliamentary success story. The fact is that we should repeat success stories. Therefore I return to the basic premise of my question.
Mr. Prime Minister, one of the difficulties with the Japanese Canadian redress was the lack of clarity in terms of a process and structure. Given that the Prime Minister is favourably disposed to correcting and righting the wrongs with respect to Italian Canadians interned during World War II, can he ensure that there will be a very clear and well-defined process and structure for talks between the government and the community? Will he also provide us with a possible timetable by which these talks may in fact bear fruit that will do us proud as a country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is quite right. One of the problems that I had as a new Prime Minister in 1984 when I sought to deal with the problem of the Japanese Canadians and their plight was that it had been ignored for 40 years. It is true that it took us a little while longer than I would have liked to bring about a policy of communication with the Japanese community and to initiate a proper process of redress.
I am sure that the actions taken during the war by the Government of Canada against the Italian community of Canada which has worked so hard to bring so much honour to Canada is, as I say, something that we cannot let stand unchallenged. I am saddened and appalled, as are all members of the House, that Governments of Canada have not acted before. I take my honourable friend's excellent views as representations.
We are initiating conversations and meetings with the Italian community. Hopefully, we will be able to bring about a dimension to convey the appropriate apology and redress to the Italian-Canadian community so that we can put this shame behind us and do honour to the Parliament of Canada.
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy 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 seven petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



DUTY REMISSION ORDERS


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the report to Parliament on new remission orders approved in the six month period ending March 31, 1990.



EIGHTY-THIRD INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE TABLING OF THIRTEENTH REPORT OF CANADIAN GROUP OF INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION

Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the thirteenth report of the Canadian group of the Interparliamentary Union. This is the report of the official delegation that represented Canada at the eighty-third interparliamentary conference held in Nicosia, Cyprus, from April 2 to 7, 1990.
Mr. Speaker, the timely subjects dealt with at this conference included the fight against drug trafficking, employment, occupational training and new technologies and their relationship to sustainable development, developments in eastern European countries and promoting peace and security in the Mediterranean regions.

May 23, 1990
Routine Proceedings
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian delegation had an opportunity to visit the Canadian contingent of the United Nations forces in Cyprus. On behalf of my colleagues in the delegation, I wish to point out the excellent work done by our military in Cyprus, under the command of Major-General Clive Milner and Lieutenant-Colonel Sutherland.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Excellent!
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent to move the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, and
necessary staff, be authorized to travel to Western Canada, from
May 30 to June 3, 1990, and to Eastern Canada, from June 12 to
June 15, 1990, to conduct hearings on the literacy issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of a number of my constituents who are concerned about the government's intentions regarding the imposition of a cruel goods and services tax.
The petitioners point out that this is going to be a tax on reading. They believe ours will be the only country in
the world that will tax reading material. They also have a whole other set of reasons why they oppose this tax.
They call upon the government to reconsider the imposition of this tax, to go back to the drawing-board and to introduce, instead, real tax reform.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to present a couple of petitions.
First, there are about 100 petitioners from the riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre who are opposed to the goods and services tax. They point out to the government that it has not addressed the unfair taxation system currently in place which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax, while forcing lower and middle-income taxpayers to bear more of the national tax burden. They call upon the government to introduce immediate, fair tax reforms.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I also have another petition signed by a number of Saskatchewan farmers who call upon the government to reinstate oats under the Canadian Wheat Board.
The petitioners call upon the government to place both oats and barley under the Canadian Wheat Board and give them the same protection that wheat now has under the Canadian Wheat Board. Then, there could be no changes to oats and barley unless Parliament itself makes that decision.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very interesting petition coming in from the Tax Busters which is addressed to hon. House of Commons of Canada, in which the petitioners say the following:
"We're fed up with government waste eating up our tax dollars. Why are we so severely taxed on every dollar we work so hard to earn, and again taxed on whatever we can afford to buy with what's left of our earnings? Federal tax-provincial tax-sales tax-manufacturers tax-property tax-land transfer tax-excise tax- and now the GST!!! Will it ever end?
"If our tax dollars were spent wisely, instead of being foolishly wasted, we wouldn't have to be taxed to death. The Canadian government does not need more money from the taxpayers -it needs conscientious, responsible representatives to diligently manage the public purse.
May 23, 1990

"Whereas the undersigned, your Petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to stop wasting our tax dollars, and to reject the proposed goods and services tax."


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 4,700 citizens who urge the government to pass legislation respectful of life.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present two petitions.
The first petition asks that the current moratorium on offshore oil exploration continue on all hydrocarbon exploration and development activities in the coastal waters off British Columbia and that the Canadian government indicate to industry that this moratorium will not be lifted in the future.
The petitioners further ask that money currently being spent by the federal government subsidizing offshore oil drilling on the pacific coast be used instead to promote energy conservation and the development and use of alternative, sustainable, environmentally benign sources of energy.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour and privilege to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, against the goods and services tax.
I have just travelled through my riding of Okanagan- Similkameen-Merritt, in towns like Princeton, Oliver, Keremeos, Cawston, Osoyoos and Grand Forks. People in all these towns are asking me to tell the House of Commons and the government that they are unalterably opposed to this goods and services tax. This is reflected in this petition of some 213 additional names.
Routine Proceedings


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit a petition on behalf of dozens of Canadians who are concerned about the fate of Mr. Yi-Shih Leo, a Canadian citizen originally from Taiwan, who has been arrested and unlawfully sentenced to 10 months imprisonment in Taiwan.
They urge the Canadian government to issue a public statement expressing Canada's concern over the violation of his rights, instruct the Canadian Embassy in Japan or our High Commission in Hong Kong to send a representative to Taiwan, to appoint a lawyer to handle the case, and to request all allies of our country that have representatives in Taiwan to assist with the case.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by quite a number of Canadians who say that the goods and services tax proposed by the federal Minister of Finance is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for the taxpayers' ability to pay.
The government has not addressed the unfair taxation system currently in place which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax, while forcing lower and middle-income taxpayers to pay more of the national tax burden. The government is now trying to tax reading, hair cuts, diapers, coffins, and home heating fuels.
The petitioners call on the government to withdraw this tax and bring in a fair taxation policy.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 would like to table a petition signed by several dozen Canadians from the great constituency of Hamilton Mountain who are so well represented in the House by my colleague.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the GST, the grief and suffering tax, proposed by the Conservative government across the way. They ask that Parliament urge the government to eliminate this tax immediately before further damage is done to our country.

May 23, 1990
Government Orders VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and present a petition signed by numerous residents of the riding of Kingston and the Islands and the neighbouring riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.
These people have signed a petition objecting to the cutbacks the government has announced in its budget to the veterans affairs portfolio, particularly long-term care for veterans and the reduction in housekeeping services to veterans. They call upon Parliament to reject these budget measures.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed? [English]


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had a Notice of Motion on the Order Paper since October 25, 1989. I have made pleas on at least three occasions over a period of many weeks to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader trying to get him to use his good offices to help me out.
Now I see the Deputy Government House Leader here in the House today. As a member of the cabinet and a new one-as they say a new broom sweeps clean-I know that he would be delighted to take this matter up with his colleague, whichever minister it is who is responsible. It appears to be the Minister of National Defence. I know he is a hard-working minister. I know that the Deputy House Leader is a hard-working minister. I am sure that if he took five minutes and placed a
call to his colleague, this information could be made available immediately in the House.
October 25, last year, Mr. Speaker. This is an inexcusable delay. Every week these matters are stood because the government cannot make up its mind. It is dithering. It is time that the public had this information. The Deputy House Leader, who is new to his job, could move with gusto and take firm steps to get his colleagues to pay some attention to the reasonable requests for information made by members of the opposition in the House on behalf of the people of Canada.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is a very hard-working member. However, the record of this government in answering notices of motions or petitions is the best of any government in Canadian history and will continue in that way.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 22, consideration of Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, and on Motions Nos. 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17A, 17B, 19, 22 and 24.
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion is one which deals with a subject that divides members of this House and the people of Canada.
Some people want strong legislation, others have said that the government should not even legislate in this area. I do not agree with the contention that we should not make laws on abortion. To me, it is essential that we legislate on the very definition of life and being, as well as on the rights associated with our being. Nothing could be more fundamental.
As it is presented, Bill C-43 is not acceptable. Unless it is substantially amended, I cannot support it. When the bill was first introduced, I spoke at length on my concerns relating to this issue. These concerns involve my belief that we cannot discuss abortion until we define life as beginning at conception, my desire for better support systems for women with crisis pregnancies, the need for preventive counselling and support, and my belief that there should be a major reorganization of our
May 23, 1990

basic philosophies towards the supporting and nurturing of families.
I do not want to repeat these arguments today, but I do want to speak briefly on the proposed amendments. I think it is important that I set out the reasons for the decisions I will be making when these amendments are brought to a vote.
I would like to deal with the proposed amendments in the order that they will be presented for voting. First, let me say that I will reject Motion No. 3 out of hand. In my view, this amendment attempts to change one of the most fundamental aspects of Bill C-43. It would allow abortion on demand and limit the application of this law.


Ms. Black:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member on the opposite side is speaking to an amendment that was never moved. It has been withdrawn. He is speaking to Motion No. 3 and I would suggest that is out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member is on debate so he can speak on any motion. I am sure he is going to get to one of the other motions. If he wants to speak to Motion No. 3 he can. It is debate. The hon. member for Calgary North.


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my hon. colleague's comments. I was not aware of that, and I would be pleased to discuss other motions that have been proposed.
Motions Nos. 4 and 22 attempt to increase dramatically the punishments that would be incurred by those who would illegally commit abortions. I have grave concerns over this type of amendment. To approve it would be to signal that our interests are in punishment and revenge. This is not and should not be the case.
As I have said before, the key issue is the definition of the beginning of life and the careful, compassionate balancing of rights from that point onwards. Emphasis on extreme punishment is a vindictive approach that fails to consider the enormous emotional and psychological stresses that are involved. It is inconsistent with a caring society and also inconsistent with other parts of the
Government Orders
Criminal Code. Therefore, I cannot support these amendments.
Motion No. 5 would limit the performance of abortions to medical practitioners. It would not allow the procedure to be performed by nurses or assistants under the supervision of a doctor. Although I believe that the amendment would have little actual effect on the number of abortions performed, I would like to support it. Doctors have a choice whether or not to participate in abortions. Their employees do not, nor do the employees of hospitals. Although this amendment tries to relieve nurses from having to actually perform abortions, they would still be forced to assist. The distinction is too fine and would not be upheld in the courts. I will not support this amendment, although I support its intent.
Motion No. 10 attempts to remove the health of the mother from consideration and leave the life of the mother as the only criterion for determining whether or not an abortion should proceed. I sympathize with the intent of this motion but I do not believe it is always possible for a doctor to determine exactly whether life or just health is at stake. I also do not believe that this amendment is constitutionally valid.
For these reasons, I will vote against Motion No. 10 in the hope that other motions, specifically Motions Nos. 12 and 13 will carry.
Motion No. 12 clarifies for me that there must be a serious threat to life and health for an abortion to be considered. Although I am not certain that Motion No.
12	would be of much use without Motion No. 13, I will support it.
It is important to point out that I consider Motion No.
13	to be the key to amending Bill C-43 successfully. This amendment limits the procedure of abortion to those cases in which no other medically acceptable treatment is available to alleviate the risk. It clarifies the issue that rights must be balanced. The test is the availability of medical procedures for the protection of the life and health of the mother. This amendment will receive my support.
Motion No. 14 would remove the definition of health from the bill. I do not consider this appropriate as I believe physicians may not always be able to distinguish between serious health and life risks. Although I believe the definition must be left in, I also believe it should be

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
strengthened. Therefore, I will vote against Motion No. 14 and for Motion No. 16, which I believe places clear and acceptable limitations on the definition of health. If Motion No. 16 fails, I will support Motion No. 17B rather than 17A, as I believe that Motion 17B leaves less room for interpretation of the word "health".
Motion No. 19 attempts to introduce the concept of a solid body of scientific knowledge into the definition of the medical practitioner's opinion. I have real concern for the ability of the courts to interpret such a clause. It would, in my opinion, invite numerous court challenges. I will therefore vote against this motion.
Motion No. 20 causes me a great deal of concern. The intent of the motion is to include in the definition of abortion, methods of birth control which work after initial conception but before implantation. I will not support this motion as I believe that deleting this clause will result in enormous confusion and uncertainty in matters relating to birth control. I strongly support birth control as the most effective method of reducing the perceived need for abortion.
The last amendment before us is Motion No. 24, which proposes to gut Bill C-43 so that there is, in fact, no law on abortion. Although I may disagree with the bill as amended, or not amended at this point, I will not support this motion.
I consider it essential that we define life in our laws. I believe that Bill C-43 does this by recognizing that abortion is fundamentally wrong. Although the definitions are not what I might like, I must reaffirm the duty of Parliament to legislate on matters of morality. I will therefore vote against this amendment.
Finally, I wish to say to my colleagues, to the Prime Minister, and to the Minister of Justice, how much I respect and appreciate the way in which the process of debate on this bill has been handled. I am well aware of the deep divisions that exist and of the enormous compromises already made on this issue in order to bring a bill, any bill, before this House.
In the final analysis, should I find that 1 have to vote against this bill, I will do so with great reluctance and not in any sense to criticize or condemn those who have come to a different conclusion. It is my sincere hope that
amendments will be made that will enable me to support this bill.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the member on the opposite side because I think he hit the nail on the head when he stated that this bill and the amendments fail to discuss the true issue. We as Canadians and as parliamentarians have to face it. When does life begin and when do we, as a society, propose to protect it?
We are talking about amendments to Bill C-43. The amendment is designed to improve the bill in some way. I would like to talk about my views on the amendments, whether they achieve what they set out to achieve, and second, on the circumstances surrounding the amendment process of Bill C-43. In order to determine whether an amendment aids or improves a particular bill, we have to look at the bill. At the beginning, I want to say that in my analysis, Bill C-43 is fatally flawed and totally unconstitutional, regardless of which side of the issue you are on, or whether you even have a side.
I say this simply because the Supreme Court of Canada the past summer in the Chantal Daigle case set out quite clearly what is the responsibility of parliamentarians. It made a statement that the foetus has absolutely no protection under Canadian law at the present time. It went further and said that the people of Canada and those who represent them in the House of Commons can, if they so decide, protect the foetus. If they wish to do so, it is fundamental that the protection be explicitly spelled out in legislation, not implicitly.
Otherwise, the bill will be unconstitutional. We did not follow that advice in Bill C-43 because there is no statement as to why abortion is being re-criminalized. There is no indication in the bill why we are putting abortion back into the Criminal Code. The first thing I look for in an amendment is to see if this fundamental flaw in the legislation is dealt with. Unfortunately, as I see the 12 amendments, the flaw is not addressed.
There is no amendment dealing with a definition of life. There is no amendment stating why the procedure of abortion is contrary to the accepted norms of society in the views of the proposers of the bill. How then can those amendments improve the bill as it now stands in its unconstitutional form, as I see it?
May 23, 1990

That brings me to the second point about the amendment process, that is, the circumstances surrounding the amendment. We were told that we would have a free vote, that we would be able to exercise our consciences on this very emotional and divisive issue which has torn the country apart and has set families one against the other. That is what we were told by our Prime Minister. He indicated in the 1988 general election that he would allow a free vote.
Instead, he has committed a fraud on the Canadian people by insisting not on allowing a free vote but that his cabinet ministers abandon conscience in favour of loyalty; then further, to send the message quite clearly that absolutely no amendments whatsoever were to be considered with respect to this bill. Regardless of what the amendment might be, regardless of whether it improved or made constitutional or changed in any way the intent of the bill, there were no amendments to be considered. The message is clear and totally contrary to the promises made by the Prime Minister that members of this House would be able to view this legislation on the basis of conscience and vote in accordance with their conscience.
Cabinet ministers are struggling in this House and indicating their dilemma, indicating that they feel that they are in effect coerced into voting in favour of Bill C-43, in fact voting against all of the amendments. This is a free vote? How can we have amendments which benefit the legislation in the face of coercion? I say that we cannot do so. It is simply impossible.
The amendments have made efforts to improve the bill in the eyes of the mover. I do not propose to go through each and every amendment. I simply wish to state that in the absence of a grappling by this country and by this Parliament of the fundamental issue, which is "Does an abortion kill a human being?", and then depending on the answer, struggle with what we do to prevent that or to allow it, and in the absence of struggling with whether or not life begins at conception or some time subsequent, we cannot deal with this bill. Therefore, I see no amendments which can save this bill constitutionally or make it logically flow to answer that question.
Having said that, it seems to me that Motion No. 10 makes an attempt to indicate the revulsion that society
Government Orders
has for the procedure of abortion, except when it is necessary to save a human life. It does not deal with, nor does the bill deal with, why we have this revulsion, why an abortion brings on different feelings than a tonsillectomy or an appendectomy, but at least it attempts to define and limit when we are going to have the procedure of abortion.
Unfortunately, in my view, even the amendment is broadly worded. If we look at the amendment as proposed it reads, and I will only read that portion which is being amended: "If the abortion were not induced, the life of the female person would be likely to be threatened."
It seems to me that the intent of the bill is that if the life of the female person is threatened, the procedure should be performed. For what purpose? To save the life. Not to destroy a life, but to save a life. However, to leave the phrase "likely to be threatened", I believe totally removes any proposed protection that Motion No. 10 would wish to bring to the bill.
Accordingly, I sympathize with the intent, as I see it, of Motion No. 10. Because I sympathize with the intent of Motion No. 10 and because I feel that Bill C-43, whether or not it is amended is, based on these amendments and based on its present structure, unconstitutional, I cannot support the bill or any of the amendments.
However, I want to make it clear that when I do vote for Motion No. 10, it will be to show that I am in favour of the spirit behind the motion which was the protection of life, the protection of the life in the womb and the protection of the life of the female person whose life would be threatened if the procedure were not performed.
All of the other amendments do not deal with the fundamental issue, which is the question of life. Therefore, I will not be supporting any of those amendments, with the exception of Motion No. 10.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak again on this important subject. Although my position in the House has changed, my position on this particular item has not changed.
I would like to reiterate that I appreciate very much the method by which this bill was arrived at. The consultation among the caucus and the discussions with many people in the committee was a good way of formulating legislation. However, I have a problem with

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
the legislation in that I believe that it has failed in that it does not protect the unborn.
If we read the legislation, there is absolutely nothing that protects the unborn foetus which, of course, is helpless. I believe that as a Parliament we need to recognize the relative rights of the mother and those of the foetus.
There has been some question about whether any amendments to this bill will be constitutionally correct. I suggest that if our Constitution does not protect the helpless in our society, perhaps we should take a look at that Constitution.
It was clear from the Supreme Court decisions the two previous speakers mentioned, where the Supreme Court cast down the previous abortion law, that there should be some protection somewhere for the foetus.
I would like to quote from the Legal Aspects of Abortion from the research branch of the Library of Parliament which states: "Apart from the obvious fact that there is no longer an enforceable federal prohibition against abortions in Canada, the full import of the court's ruling in the Morgentaler case is as yet unknown." The majority of the court did not rule that women had an unconditional right to abortion under the Charter. On the contrary, it merely concluded that the existing provisions on abortions were set so as to impair irretrievably a pregnant woman's Section 7 rights.
All five justices comprising the majority acknowledged the interest of the foetus was deserving of constitutional recognition under Section 1. Three expressly stated that the law restricting abortions might yet be consistent with the Charter where at some point during the pregnancy the state's interests in protecting the foetus might be sufficiently compelling to override the rights that women otherwise might have under the Charter.
Although the justices did not indicate when this compelling state interest might crystallize, Madam Justice Wilson, who wrote the strongest judgment against the existing abortion law, made the following comments: 'The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state's interest in its protection becomes compelling, I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all relevant disciplines. It seems to me
however that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester".
We could go on with that, but it does show that the Supreme Court indicated that there should be some type of protection for that foetus.
A lot of the debate and the discussions throughout the country centre around the idea of when does life actually begin. Does it begin at conception? Does it begin at the age of viability when the baby or the foetus can live outside the womb? As we read the literature, examine precedents in court, and even medical opinions, it is very difficult to come to a conclusion as to when this actually does occur.
A lot of it really depends on our own attitude toward the unborn. I remember in particular a case of mine in the past where a woman went into labour at 24 weeks, just at the borderline of so-called viability. In the case room there were three doctors, two nurses and an anaesthetist. The baby was born weighing under two pounds and was taken to the Vancouver General Hospital. The baby went through six months of intensive care. Today this baby is a very beautiful teenager. At the same time that the struggle was going on to maintain the life of this baby, an abortion was being performed in the operating room of this same hospital.
There was an instance last summer where a foetus of the same age was aborted that could have been saved. It could have been a life that carried on.
Our attitudes are very important in determining our judgment and the positions that we take.
I believe that our society must defend the defenceless. I cannot think of anything more defenceless than an unborn baby.
I was very impressed during deliberations of the legislative committee by a submission from the Families and Friends of the Handicapped on Bill C-43. I would like to quote from the submission that they made to the committee.
These people represented a number of types of handicapped children. There were also parents who had adopted handicapped children and adults with handicaps. In their brief they stated: "If society takes the position that a disability is a sufficient reason to deny treatment to a child or is grounds for ending that child's life before birth through abortion, society is making a
May 23, 1990

profound and dangerous statement about all human life. Society is saying that the lives of the unborn are second-class and not worth defending, that the life of a disabled person is not really worth living".
They further stated: "Are we expected to believe that a society which sanctions death before birth is a society which will recognize and respect the rights, the aspirations and the human dignities of persons with a disability? It is not just eugenic abortions which represent a threat to the disabled. Any abortion law which sanctions the killing of children poses an equal threat. Such a law establishes the principle that the value of a human life is to be determined by its value to other persons" and I think that that is a very significant statement. "A permissive abortion law embraces the principle that one group of human beings can be declared to be of secondary value and to be disposable. If the unborn can be so designated, so can the disabled".
Because this submission was from a group of disabled people, many of their comments are in that vein.
"Bill C-43 represents an attack upon the efforts of the disabled to obtain equality in society and win the dignity and respect to which they are entitled. The bill would allow abortion for the widest possible reasons. It would enshrine in law a principle that the lives of some may be destroyed for the convenience of others".
There are many points in their brief. I would like to make one last quotation: "We have also reached a crucial moment because of our frequently expressed belief in the equality of everyone is now put to the test. If we say that some people are more equal than others, that the lives of some can be destroyed for the sake of others, then we have abandoned our cherished principles of equality".
Although that is a particular point of view, we need to take note of it and see where this law could possibly lead in the future.
There are some other problems with the law as it stands. I would bring forth the brief from the Canadian Medical Association which opposes Bill C-43. It is particularly concerned about the first amendments we are dealing with, Motions Nos. 4 and 22.
Government Orders
The CMA brief points out that "the bill singles out abortion as the only specified medical act to attract Criminal Code sanctions", and I think we need to ask why that should be. The CMA believes that such treatment is inappropriate and abortion should be treated and controlled under the same statutes that apply to other medical acts.
The CMA further comments: "The inclusion of abortion in the Criminal Code threatens the nature of the physician-patient relationship. The ultimate effect of this bill would be to confer legal entitlement to abortion, but at the expense of access to the service. The bill creates a conceptual nightmare and the bill is vague in its intent".
There are various problems with the bill. It does not protect the innocent or the unborn. It puts the medical fraternity at a distinct disadvantage. They are the only people under this bill that in any way are at risk for carrying out their duties, and of course they are concerned about future access.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, to say that this is a complex and difficult issue would be a fantastic understatement. Every individual Canadian has wrestled with it and has had to come to grips with this very personal and difficult moral issue. Some say you cannot legislate morality, but I believe that we must try.
This issue challenges the basic question of what we believe in as individuals and as a society. This issue speaks to rights, freedoms, choices, responsibilities, and obligations of the individual and of society.
Throughout the 1980s Canadians have watched a difference of opinion grow and fester into a raging debate that has deeply divided many Canadians. It has created countless front page headlines on dragged out court battles, demonstrations involving thousands of Canadians, and repeated arrests.
The debate on abortion is really a debate on values, rights, and obligations. It is a debate that has grown into a conflict where both sides have confronted each other frequently in the courtroom. The repeated legal battles saw the conflict mount and result in the Supreme Court of Canada striking down the law governing abortion.
Now this painful and divisive issue has been put by the Supreme Court into the hands of Parliament to be resolved. As members of Parliament we are elected by

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
Canadians to make political decisions, decisions that will benefit society as a whole while respecting the rights of the individual. Parliament must attempt to resolve this conflict in Canadian society.
As we have been debating Bill C-43 in the House of Commons, my hon. colleagues have risen to give their thoughtful opinions on the abortion issue. While I may not agree with all of them, I do respect their differing opinions.
This conflict in Canadian society is created by deeply divided views on abortion. Each side is demanding that the law governing abortion protect differing rights. One group demands that the rights of the unborn be recognized and protected under the law. Another group demands just as strongly that the rights of women be upheld and protected. The people of Canada wait for leadership from Parliament to resolve this conflict.
Bill C-43 has been characterized by the government as a compromise, but how can the government claim to have covered the middle ground when it has done nothing to address the fundamental problems at the root of the conflict? The government has done nothing to address the rights of the unborn, the key issue at the core of the debate.
It is the duty and responsibility of the government to draft a bill that is good for Canadian society by trying to bring an end to the conflict surrounding the debate. I believe this bill has failed the test and will fail again.
The committee that sought to hear the opinions of Canadians and groups met for a number of weeks and heard expert witnesses. I think it is fair to say that most of those groups representing a number of viewpoints have all said that this bill has failed the test and should be rejected. Nowhere in the bill does it speak about life. It speaks about protecting the life and health of a woman, and I am fully supportive of that. However the bill is frighteningly silent about life and the meaning of life, especially the life and the rights of the unborn.
Deep in our hearts we all know that life begins at conception, that a living cell is nurtured within the womb of a mother until such time as it can sustain itself outside the protective life sustaining system of the mother.
Advances in medical technology now make it possible for that living human being to be sustained outside the protective womb as early as 19 weeks, and who knows where we go from there. I am proud to have in my riding a world renowned hospital, St. Joseph's Hospital, dedicated to this end.
My point is that as a society and as individuals we all rejoice at the miracle of birth and life. As a society, once a person is born, we devote our total attention and resources to protecting that life. We expend millions of dollars and would expend anything it takes to protect and enhance life. As a society, we do that from birth to death. Therefore, it is implausible to me that if we believe in life after birth, that we would not do everything possible to ensure that the rights of yet to be born human beings should also be protected and enhanced.
If this bill with certain amendments were to be passed, especially those that seek to speak to life and the rights of the unborn, we will be saying that we believe in something. For, if we do not believe in life, what do we believe in?
Therefore I will be supportive of those amendments that seek to restrict abortions and take into consideration the life and the serious health implications of the mother.
Life should be the rule and abortion should be the exception, and not the other way around. Society should understand and know not only what a law says, but what it means. It must have a value system built in.
The exceptions where an abortion should be permissible should only be when the life of the woman is in danger and the medical risks are substantial and serious.
It must be clear to those seeking an abortion and to those medical practitioners called upon to perform an abortion that it should be the exception and not the rule.
Having said that, it is also imperative that as a society and as a government that supportive community resources be encouraged and supported and that other governmental policies and programs are in place to reinforce our commitment that we intend to encourage, support, and assist women, specifically, who have to make this heart-rending, excruciating and personal decision.
May 23, 1990

The community and government must play a very positive, substantial and supportive role up front, and not as an after the fact matter.
In addition, I have some grave reservations as to the criminal implications of this bill. I voted against Bill C-43 at second reading because I felt that this bill was seriously flawed from a number of standpoints and, if certain amendments were not passed to ensure a proper balance of competing rights, that I could not and would not support this bill at third reading.
I have listened to Canadians and my constituents for almost 16 months on this fundamental issue. I do not believe their views are respected and reflected in Bill C-43 as written. This bill has failed to achieve the delicate balance sought by this government and has failed to meet the challenge laid out by the Supreme Court to Parliament to recognize the rights of the unborn.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I volunteered to sit on the legislative committee on abortion, although I was quite aware it would be a very difficult and onerous committee, because I felt it was important that our caucus have female representation. Although I feel this issue is important to men, it directly affects women. As a woman representative in this Parliament, I felt I had a special interest in representing women on it.
Second, it is important that we in our particular caucus have representation from the centre, from the people who do not have extreme views of those who think that abortion should only be permitted in very rare instances affecting life and those who have the view that it should be entirely the decision of the woman. I feel that I am in the middle.
I come to this debate with a great deal of experience. I have been elected at large across 560,000 people five times and have sat on the Metropolitan Toronto Council for 11 years. In that forum we had to debate this issue on a number of occasions. The area which I debated it that was the most sensitive was as the metro appointee to the Catholic Children's Aid Society. Therefore I have a very personal experience with some of the most heart-rending situations involving abortion that anyone could possibly have experienced.
Government Orders
I have a deep concern that the rights of women are respected on this issue. Yet, we as a society should be doing everything possible to prevent abortions. The act of abortion represents a failure and a tragedy.
I therefore have no problem with legislation in this field. It is important for Parliament to state its position, particularly when the rights of individuals can be so terribly affected.
There has been a very definite need for legislation since 1988. Things have not been fine. We have had two very newsworthy court cases with third party interventions. We have had the B.C. government attempt to legislate in this area, and there are several provinces that have attempted to restrict access. The opposition member's contention that everything has been just great since 1988 is simply not so.
If one looks at the statistics on abortions since 1988, the number of abortions has not risen. This statistic has been used to say that women have been acting responsibly. I think it also means that when there was a law they were also acting responsibly and there was no difficulty for women who wanted an abortion to get one in Canada, except for the problems of access in remote areas with which we have to deal in any event, law or no law.
Legislation in this area is not something that is negative. I do not think we are recriminalizing abortion. Abortion was not criminal before. Abortions that were outside the law were criminalized. Similarly this legislation makes abortions that are not in accordance with the law again criminalized.
The old law was not much of a problem. It was in for 17 years. The Morgentaler decision was around the issue of the abortion committee, which doctors also complained about. It was simply something that did provide a delaying effect, that when it was operating properly, as it was in most urban centres and major hospitals, there was really no real problem.
I do not think what we are talking about today is law. What we are talking about is whether or not there will be more court actions. I do not think that the law we are passing will affect the number of abortions in Canada. I do not think women have abortions for frivolous reasons. The fact that there has been no law and that there has been no change in the statistics indicates that.

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
What I am hoping will be prevented are court cases and the humiliation particular individuals suffered, as we saw so clearly last year. With this new law, if the medical association meets the challenge implicit in it, because the law makes the doctors really responsible for enforcing the ethics of their profession, and if the CMA responds by establishing procedures for doctors to follow and a standard consent form such as the one that Dr. Morgentaler uses which ensures that women are aware of alternatives to abortions, it will operate in an efficient and reasonable fashion.
The question of access is also improved by this law, because it establishes the right of a women to have an abortion in consultation with a doctor.
In addition, the medical innovations that are now occurring mean that in the future abortions will not be performed in hospitals. There is the new pill that has been approved in France and doctors are now talking about medical procedures in the abortion field being performed in their offices. This will mean that access will not be an issue in the future.
Let us turn to the rights of the foetus. According to this legislation, the foetus is entitled to consideration in balance with the rights of the woman to security of person. I do not think that the foetus has been ignored because doctors have been given that responsibility in accordance with their profession.
The Canadian Medical Association, according to their ethics, does not believe that it is professionally reasonable for a doctor to perform an abortion on a viable foetus, a viable foetus being one that weighs over 500 grams or is past 20 weeks of gestation. The CMA says that abortion should not be used as an alternative to contraception. Similarly, counselling services, family planning services and information on contraception must be readily available to all Canadians. It says that the patient should be provided with the option of full and immediate counselling services in the event of unwanted pregnancy. It talks about options for women.
This law makes it clearly the responsibility of doctors in the medical profession, in conjunction with women, to provide that kind of counselling and that kind of assurance to society that women who receive abortions are fully counselled as to their options and that prevention is also considered.
Those who would deny a woman the right to an abortion except if it threatens the life of the woman, her physical health in some dramatic way, do not, I think, appreciate the rights of women in this society. The Minister of Justice has already stated that she believes it would be unconstitutional to support those amendments.
I think those people also underestimate the seriousness of the psychological reasons that women have for abortions. In a pluralistic and democratic society such as ours, such a law would simply not be obeyed. One cannot force a law on society which affects people so individually or personally.
At the committee I asked the question how people could possibly think that such a law could be enforced in Canada if Ceausescu in Romania could not enforce such a law in the most severe dictatorship in the world.
Our society respects and cares about the rights of individuals. We have to deal with people with compassion. I think this law will ensure that, with the help and co-operation of the medical profession, that will be done.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about the amendments contained in Bill C-43, and especially in support of amendment no. 24 moved by one of my colleagues.
I feel somewhat uneasy reading this bill because I wonder if 85 per cent of the members of this House were women, would we vote for such a bill? I shall give you an example. As you know, Mr. Speaker, about 12 to 15 per cent of the members are now women. On examining this bill, I am struck by the lack of logic and plain common sense.
This bill came about as a result of the Morgentaler decision, as I am sure you recall, Mr. Speaker. After several Quebec courts had rendered decisions, a Quebec jury decided that Mr. Morgentaler had the right to perform therapeutic abortions. The people spoke. They said it was not a criminal matter. The decision to have an abortion is already hard enough; the public did not want to make it a crime. In the end, Dr. Morgentaler was found not guilty. It went to the Supreme Court, which confirmed and ratified the decisions of the other courts. Good! It is done.
May 23, 1990

But what happened is that two years ago, the federal government-that is us, Mr. Speaker, we are responsible-but especially the Conservative government said, "we will not leave that alone. No! We members of Parliament, we men know better. We will prepare a bill that will make everyone unhappy"-well, not everyone, but about 62 per cent of Canadians. And I understand that some Canadians are unhappy with the bill because they think it is against the unborn. There are others, especially in my party, who think this is not a step forward, a step toward a better understanding of the problem but a step backward. When the government says it wants to defend the interests of Quebec men and women-I trust the women of Quebec are included-I find it hard to understand how it can claim to protect those rights when we have before the House a bill that is so illogical in design and so unfair in its application, I would even go so far as to say, Mr. Speaker, a bill that is cruel and anti-women. How can I prove that? Easy. It means forcing a woman who has been raped to bear the child of the person who raped her! A young girl of 13 or 14 who was raped by her father would have to bear his child. Why? My colleagues will say, because they are convinced, which I do not doubt: because life is important. I ask you Mr. Speaker: whose life? The life-and one can debate whether life is there or not-of the foetus or the life of a young girl of 13 or 14? That is the problem.
I know we can talk about this for a long time. When does life start? At what point does the foetus become a human being?
The consequences of this legislation are disastrous. They are very negative for Canadian women. We have already seen it in Nova Scotia-in fact, that is why the Supreme Court dismissed the existing legislation- where women have lacked the same access as women in Ontario, British Columbia or elsewhere. In fact, this was pure discrimination.
The Canadian Medical Association has said, and these are experts, that if the bill is passed, doctors-the CMA speaks for the doctors-will limit access to abortion because they will be afraid of being put in jail.
I do not blame them. I realize that some hon. members here really want to do the right thing, and I understand
Government Orders
that, but by supporting this bill, they are doing the exact opposite.
Before I finish, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am uncomfortable with this bill. I am comfortable with the fact that I am opposed to this legislation, but I am uncomfortable about the fact that a government has the arrogance to believe it has a monopoly on truth and to promote this kind of legislation which I think is unnecessary and, in the final instance, does not protect the interests of Quebecers and especially not the interest of the women of Quebec. That is why I am ashamed when I see this government which claims to defend the rights of men and women by proposing this kind of legislation.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to make a few comments on this very difficult and troubling subject for members of Parliament.
When this issue was before the House the last time I voted against the bill. Parliament at that time was being asked to give approval in principle to the bill and I said to Parliament at that time that I could not in good conscience give approval to something that I have always fought against in my life. I have fought for the protection of unborn children and I fought against the abortion law that was in place in Canada for many years.
Since I was being asked to give approval in principle, I said I could not do that. I decided at that time, having made the point, that I would consider the whole issue again. I listened very carefully to the arguments of individuals who said that this law was better than no law, that there were positive aspects to this law from both points of view, the pro-choice and the pro-life.
I looked at it not only for that reason but because of the profound respect that I have for other individuals in Parliament who are also struggling with this. One of the things that I have learned is that as difficult and important as these moral questions are, it is very difficult to come up with absolutes. Other members looking at the same set of circumstances can come to different conclusions as to what they should be doing and how they should be acting in this.

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
Having considered very carefully all the different sides of this issue, I have come to the conclusion that I will not be supporting the bill at report stage or third reading stage because it goes against a principle that I have fought for all my life, that is, my belief in the sacredness of human life. After having discussions with my colleagues, I realize there are good points in this, that it does recognize the value of human life, but I could not overcome my concerns with respect to the over-all implications of this bill.
I think there is a role for individuals who state their position very clearly and not move from that. Society itself, indeed the Supreme Court, recognizes, in cases of unborn children, the legitimate interest of society in the foetus. That is as it should be because it has always been my belief that the less articulate a particular interest is, the more likely it is that their interests will be compromised or not taken into consideration. I think there is a role for individuals such as myself, who believe as I do, to state very clearly their position.
I do not minimize the difficulties. I know the difficulties of the constitutional considerations in this area. As well, I do not know what words Parliament could come up with. I have no idea what could be put down on a piece of paper that would be acceptable to both sides of this issue. I do not know what those words would be. I give full credit to my colleagues and the leadership of my political party for putting together what I would not call a compromise but an accommodation of both sides. That is why in many ways it was very tempting for me to say that I could accept that, because I do not know what else could pass in Parliament.
However, I have other fears. I have fears about the removal of this issue from the public agenda. I have fears about how this bill will operate in practice. I could go on with those criticisms. I am sure that the criticisms of this bill have been very well articulated by members inside and outside of the House. It would be unfair for me to get into that when I know how difficult this has been.
For myself the way is clear, but that does not make it any less difficult for me. I will not be supporting the bill. I will also not be supporting, with the exception of one, the amendments. The so-called pro-life amendments do
not turn this into a pro-life bill. It would be hypocritical for me to get up this evening and support any one of 10 or 15 of these amendments and then ultimately find that the bill is unacceptable to me. It would be hypocritical to do that. I will not do that this evening and, with the exception of one, I will be voting against those amendments presently before the House.
One of the things I have learned about this is that there are no absolutes, and there is no way of coming to a conclusion about absolutes. People on all sides of this issue are sincere. I heard some speeches yesterday that I was somewhat disappointed to hear. People on either side of this issue were ascribing insincerity to the other side. I do not believe that. I believe that people on both sides of this issue are just as sincere about wanting to do the right thing.
As well, I heard at least one comment suggesting that the Prime Minister may be forcing government members to do something. I can say that those members do not know the Prime Minister of Canada. They are absolutely wrong in that conclusion. That is not the case. Members of this party are free to vote according to their conscience, which is one among many reasons why I am so proud to be a part of this government and this political party.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in this debate and to express my views on a most sensitive human issue. It is a human issue. It affects all of us. To discuss the issue solely in the context of how it affects women is to ignore the fact that abortion affects men and children and, obviously, it affects the unborn.
I voted against the bill at second reading in the hope that it would be amended at committee stage. While a number of amendments were moved, the government has indicated that it is not willing to accept any of them. Therefore, I must make my position clear from the outset.
I believe that, since life begins at conception, life must be legally protected from the moment of conception. On that basis, I cannot support the bill in its present form because it does not effectively prohibit abortion and it does not protect the unborn. I am opposed to Bill C-43
May 23, 1990

in principle. I am opposed because this bill does nothing to solve the real dilemma of abortion.
I realize, however, that it is unproductive merely to criticize the government's proposals without making some alternative suggestions or general recommendations. That is why I would like also to address the need for a holistic approach to the abortion issue.
The main problem with this bill is that it fails to address fundamental issues. There is no mention of the rights of the foetus or the rights of women. Nowhere does it say that an unborn has a right to life and that this life should take precedence over a woman's expressed desire to "control her body". Nowhere in Bill C-43 is there an explicit recognition of the fact that a foetus is a human life. In fact, there is not even any mention of the foetus. How can a law on abortion make no mention of the existence of the foetus?
It seems clear to me that this bill is avoiding the fundamental issues. It dumps the problems onto the provinces, the doctors, and the courts.
What is the meaning of the term "health" in this bill? When Section 251 of the Criminal Code was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Morgentaler case of January, 1988, Chief Justice Dickson expressed concern that the term "health" was too vague. Bill C-43 does not rectify this problem. While there is attempt to respond to Chief Justice Dickson's concerns, I maintain that the qualifiers of "physical, mental and psychological" in Bill C-43 simply leave too many doors open. In fact, C-43 does not limit interpretation of "health" in any way. The definition could be extended to include anything and everything. One doctor can arrive at a conclusion that would make an abortion legal.
I support Motion No. 10 by which the word "health" would be eliminated. The bill in its present form will be susceptible to arbitrary limitations on application. It will be vulnerable to constitutional review on the basis of ambiguity. In fact, it seems clear that the issue may simply end up being passed on to the courts.
According to Professor Allan Hutchinson of Osgoode Hall Law School:
Anyone who thought the introduction of new legislation would end
the abortion debate will be disappointed. One chapter may be closing
but another is just beginning. Once the dramatic action in Parliament
Government Orders
ends, it will move down the hill to the more refined but no less heated
setting of the Supreme Court.
The courts, however, will not be alone in facing the abortion issue. With Bill C-43 the federal government is passing on an additional burden to the provinces. The federal government is responsible for criminal law and for guaranteeing that all Canadians receive the same level of insured medical services. However, if Bill C-43 is passed, the government will be abdicating these responsibilities because it will be the provinces which will ultimately have to decide such issues as whether abortions will be performed in their hospitals, whether abortion clinics will be licensed, and whether provincial health plans will cover the cost of abortions.
Finally, I would like to add that doctors will also be burdened by a great deal of decision-making concerning abortion. The responsibilities and the problems associated with these responsibilities will now be in the hands of the courts, the provinces, and the doctors. What an abdication of responsibility.
Effective solutions assume a good understanding of the problems. However, I firmly believe that in the case of abortion the real underlying problems have not been sufficiently dealt with or, in fact, understood. How can we provide solutions when we have not even properly identified the fundamental problem?
This is the crux of the matter. The fundamental problem is not the pregnancies themselves. It is the fact that they are unwanted. From this we must infer that the solution is not abortion on demand. Rather, the solution is to deal with the various forces that underlie the decision to have an abortion. We must examine why women have abortions. We must identify the pressures that push women to opt for abortions, and then it is our duty to do everything humanly possible to remove these pressures.
I would like to mention at this point that, contrary to the beliefs of many pro-choice advocates, being pro-life does not imply being anti-women. In fact, it is quite the contrary. We must encourage the development of support and counselling programs for women. We must recognize that many women, faced with the problem of an unwanted pregnancy, are lonely, afraid, deserted, usually poor and, perhaps worst of all, stigmatized by society. We must help these women. We must have programs that deal with the enormous social, economic, and psychological forces that push women to believe that

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
the only way out of a difficult situation is to abort their own children.
Abortion is a violent act. It is a violent act against unborn children and against women. It is time to understand why this violence occurs. It is time to stop this violence.
Bill C-43 does nothing to address the reasons why women abort. There is a desperate need for counselling and support programs. We must make facilities equally accessible to all women across the country. We must facilitate the adoption alternative. We must provide more child care facilities. We must provide child care bursaries for women with children who want to complete their education. After all, people are our most precious resource and we should invest in that resource.
There is no quick fix to the abortion problem. There is no easy solution. Bill C-43 is an attempt to have it both ways. It pays lip service to the pro-life movement by putting Bill C-43 in the Criminal Code. However, the content and the intent of the bill basically amount to abortion on demand. It will be a criminal offence to perform abortions unless any one doctor is prepared to say that the life or health of the mother is threatened. In essence, abortion is left to the discretion of the woman and her doctor.
I reiterate that I will not support this bill. I simply cannot support a bill that discriminates against the weakest and most defenceless members of our society.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken many times on this issue. I am speaking now, of course, at report stage of Bill C-43 and against the motions nos. 4 to 19 which are very tough, restrictive and punitive amendments which would increase the criminal sanctions of Bill C-43. If the complete criminal prohibition of abortion fails, there are several amendments which would limit the definition of "health" as another tactic to try to restrict the choice of women.
It is significant that these extremely restrictive amendments are presented by anti-choice advocates. I am sorry to say this, but all members who presented these motions, and most of the members speaking to them, are men. The total impact of the abortion question concerns
women primarily and should be a private choice and decision of each woman.
I regret that some women members, who I know in their hearts prefer women to have a choice on the question of abortion, also will vote for Bill C-43. I can respect some of their feelings about this, but I note that there are none today who are speaking for the extremely restrictive and paternalistic Motions Nos. 4 to 19.
I would particularly like to commend the member from Toronto who spoke a few minutes ago for stressing prevention and the points she raised about the lack of reality of these motions in even achieving the goals that their movers sought in presenting them.
I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the many men, and particularly our male colleagues in this caucus, who have supported the policy that abortion is not a criminal matter to be controlled by the state with severe criminal sanctions and limitations in criminal law. They recognize, as do the majority of Canadians, that this is an extremely personal matter that involves a very difficult personal decision for a woman who is faced with an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy. As such, it must be treated as a health matter with the decision to be made by the woman and her doctor.
We do not feel that criminal laws have any place in the question of reproductive and family planning matters. Experience over the past two years, since the Supreme Court decision was made in the Morgentaler case which rescinded the previous criminal laws, has shown that we do not need a new federal law. Abortions have not increased as a result of having open choice on this matter. Women have been treated with the respect and dignity they deserve, recognizing their right to decide themselves whether or not they are ready to have a child.
The present situation, where we have no abortion law, is much more respectful of doctors and medical associations generally. Doctors and medical associations have established regulations and health standards that are the only kinds of controls needed.
If a woman decides not to continue a pregnancy, whether it is because she is alone without support, is in an abusive relationship, is a young girl with no means of support to raise a family, or wants to wait and plan a family later, whatever the reason-and there are many, many complex reasons-this is a safe medical procedure performed by a physician who does not feel intimidated
May 23, 1990

or subject to criminal sanctions. There is no criminal law imposed on the woman or the doctor. That is one of the reasons we object to the bill. The major problem for women today is the lack of access, particularly in the Atlantic region and rural and remote areas. That is where we should focus our action.
The series of amendments, numbered 4 to 19, being debated this afternoon are restrictive, cruel and undemocratic, based on outdated, patriarchal views of women, the fact that women must be controlled by the state- and the state is usually a patriarchal institution-they cannot be trusted and must be controlled and punished with tough criminal sanctions. That is what these particular amendments are saying to Canadian women and to Canadians generally.
It is sickening to know that there are people in Canada, and members in this House, who support these resolutions, who want to impose the kind of inhumane policies that we saw in Romania where women were forced to have babies and these babies were neglected and abused. A whole generation is almost destroyed and disturbed and society as a whole has suffered greatly.
Do we really want this kind of authoritative dictatorship in Canada? Most Canadians do not. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House, that that is what these amendments mean to many women. These amendments and their movers show that they have no empathy for the condition of women who face very difficult decisions and no respect for the rights of women to make their own choices as to whether or not now is the time to have a family.
I would like to refer to the main motions to which I object. First, Motions Nos. 4 and 22, if passed, would increase the criminal penalty from two to 20 years, a 20-year imprisonment for doctors who perform abortions. Doctors perform abortions now because they see it as a health measure and a necessity in individual cases. This is not only completely intolerable for doctors but would also increase criminal penalties for women.
Motion No. 5 states that abortions will be performed only by a medical practitioner. The medical associations have objected to this and have agreed that in certain situations there could be medical procedures under the direction of a medical practitioner. We know that this is directed to women who would have self-induced abortions. I wonder what some of the proponents of these
Government Orders
amendments would do about morning-after pills which is a form of abortion. What are they going to do about monitoring that, I wonder. There are no beneficial effects to any of these amendments, only negative ones.
For example, Motion No. 10 proposes that the only abortions that would be legal would be those performed in order to save the life of a woman. Other abortions performed for the woman's health would be illegal. Surely, that does not make sense. It certainly does not make sense to me.
Another amendment would force a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria. This is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus, an infringement on the security of the person. This is what Chief Justice Dickson said about the old law and would certainly say the same about this amendment.
Motion No. 13 makes a bad bill worse. Health is not the issue. Unwanted pregnancy is the issue. Motion No. 14 is another one that would strike out the definition of health.
Motions Nos. 16, 17A and 17B are ones I am very interested in because we have had at least two doctors in this House who have spoken about the question of health. They seem to disregard completely the UN definition of health, and also, what I understand to be psychosomatic medicine which relates to the psychological and physical aspects of health. It is very difficult, if you have a whole approach to medicine, to separate these.
Certainly, I wonder if a woman under extreme stress and anxiety is a healthy woman. I do not think so, and I do not think she would really be in a position to be a healthy mother. The rationale about health as a reason is particularly offensive.
Motion No. 19 refers to scientific knowledge. I would think that, surely, physicians have access to scientific knowledge now. This seems to be an insult to the medical profession.
In summary, there are many reasons why I and my party object to these resolutions and will vote against them. They criminalize abortion in the extreme and are not a deterrent, because women will still seek out back street abortions or self-induced abortions. They will be victims of quacks and butchers as the women in Romania

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
were. It was the experience in Italy when abortion was very restricted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Edmonton Northwest.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, Southwest. Come back for a visit some time and we will reorient you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Whip had you down for Edmonton Northwest. I knew it was Southwest, I thought maybe you had changed your constituency.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to quarrel with you or the Whip.
I am going to be very brief today, because my position on this issue was dealt with at some length in the 1988 debate on the motions that were before the House at that time. The philosophical approach that I had was outlined at that time but I would like to make a few comments on the process, the amendments and on the bill itself, to illustrate the tremendous dichotomy of views that one encounters in dealing with this issue.
First, with reference to process, I am pleased that I am afforded the opportunity as a member of Parliament on the government side to have a free vote in this instance. In many ways, parliamentary secretaries are members of the government and are regarded as such within our system. I appreciate having the opportunity to vote according to my conscience on what I think is a very fundamental issue.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Vancouver East and her comments about the amendments. I believe it is her position that her party is for choice, but her party does not seem to have a choice available to its individual members on this issue.
With reference to the amendments themselves, I believe that all those who were involved with the process of putting forward amendments and considering the possibility of amendments while the bill was in committee and those who have put them on the Order Paper for consideration here today have borne in mind a number of criteria. The first is to do that which is proper and right. The second is to do that which is politically
achievable and the third is to do that which will meet the test of the Supreme Court of Canada.
It is my considered opinion that a number of the amendments before us-I refer to Motions Nos. 12, 13, and 17B, in particular, but not excluding the others-will stand a court test. I concede that there is opinion on both sides of the issue, but I have seen opinions I respect from three very substantial and distinguished sources that these amendments would stand a court test.
I want to relate what happened one Friday afternoon in February when I was seeing constituents, as we all do, in my riding office. I had had a rather testy exchange of correspondence with a constituent who represented a significant interest group, not only within the constituency but also nationally.
This constituent had written to me taking me to task for what she perceived to be, with some accuracy, my position on this issue. She suggested that "no one group", as she put it, "had the right to impose its view on others within a pluralistic society".
I met with this woman, had lunch with her and tried to come to grips with this and other issues which she had raised in her correspondence with me. I stressed to her my belief that if there is not an ethical and moral basis for our law, then we are steering by the bow, rather than by the tiller. In this issue we tend to fall into the whirlpool of losing respect for life itself.
I listened with care to the member for Vancouver East, and I know it will sound patronizing to her ears and to the ears of a number of my colleagues in this House, but I do not think the issue is controlling women when we address this bill. The issue is respect for life. That is why I see a series of amendments on the Order Paper.
On that same day, I returned to my constituency office and met with an obstetrician who I thought was of the Catholic faith, because of his well-known position on the abortion issue. He was, of course, opposed to abortion but I learned that he was a Muslim. I had not known that, prior to meeting with him. He gave me his view and, as he left my office, a young woman came in to see me. Neither the man who was leaving nor the young woman
May 23, 1990

who was coming in, knew that the other would be there. They were father and daughter.
The daughter had organized a pro-life group on the campus of the University of Alberta. She said it was uphill because it was not the most popular cause on a campus, but she had recruited 75 members for that group and was hoping to have a national meeting of like-minded groups from campuses across the country.
I asked her what message she conveyed to young women in particular, but also to young men who joined her group as well. I asked what she advocated they do in our society and what kind of code of behaviour she advocated. She said: "fun within the framework of chastity". Those words may seem absurd in today's society and in fact the woman with whom I had lunch said: "Let's face it. The fact of the matter is that the vast bulk of teenagers and young people today are having sex and so we have to face that reality."
The point I am making is that there is an issue of responsibility here, not just responsibility for women but also for men to endeavour to control their activity and, if they are not able to do so, to take reasonable precautions to minimize the consequences.
Now we come to the obvious, the amendments themselves. We face the possibility of none of the amendments succeeding tonight, and which way do we go on the bill itself when the vote comes up next Tuesday, May 29.
There are many people who know my position on the issue who are urging me to vote against the bill. They are saying that it is better to have no bill than to have a flawed bill. Frankly, I do not know how I am going to vote if the amendments do not succeed. I hope some of the amendments do succeed.
If the goal is as I have suggested, to respect life and to spare lives, which is the lesser evil: to have no bill, or to have the bill that is before us? When one deals with the issue of lesser evil-a much abused term, by the way, Mr. Speaker-one must clearly identify that there are no alternatives before one. Clearly in this case there are not if the amendments do not succeed. One must also analyze whether the options have components of evil or lack of good in them. Both clearly do.
Government Orders
If, on the other hand, the goal is to find a bridgehead on which the principle of respect for life can be nurtured and encouraged, to await the day when through education and a change of heart this country will come to a different attitude on the issue of abortion without in one slightest way demeaning the rights of women and in fact enhancing the rights of women, and can define a parallel right of the foetus or the unborn individual, then that is a goal to be pursued.
I will be listening with great care to the debate not only today but tomorrow. I have consulted with my constituents. I have written all those who have been in correspondence with me on the issue and I have said, among other things:
-if the Bill emerges from Report Stage unamended, is it better to vote for it, imperfect as it is, or against it, which would leave us with no abortion law whatsoever for the foreseeable future?
My judgement at this point is that the Bill would discourage some doctors who perform some abortions from continuing to do so. I am not at all sure that it would save substantial numbers of unborn lives. But it would make a statement that performing abortions is a breach of the Criminal Code (except in certain very broad circumstances).
That is the issue before us, an issue from my point of view of deciding between lesser evils. I will be praying for guidance, but I will also be listening to my colleagues for guidance because there is a good body of wisdom in this House.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, if men were able to become pregnant, would we be debating this bill? I rather think not. That is a question I would like to put because I, as a man, do not have a clue what it is like to be pregnant. I think we, as men, should admit that we are rather unqualified to judge the issue of what to do about pregnancy.
I do not condone abortion as birth control. I doubt that very many people do, regardless of whether they are pro-life, anti-abortion or pro-choice. I make the mistake of saying pro-life because I think that is the name given to people who call themselves pro-lifers. It is a misnomer, a mistaken label, because I do not think anyone has a monopoly on caring about life. I care about life just as much as anyone else. I do not think that is debatable. If you are pro-choice it does not mean that you do not care about life.

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
I would like to state something that should be understood by some people here in the House. I think there is some hypocrisy in attitudes of non-aboriginal people. In the Inuit culture there is no such thing as an unwanted child. We have a custom called custom adoption. I am adopted. I have five adopted children. That is not because these children were not wanted, but because I had talked to whoever had the children and we decided we could take care of the child better than the mother, or maybe because we did not have children of our own.
I would like to elaborate on this. When I say some of us are pro-choice, I talk about people in general. When I talk about Inuit, you will find that most Inuit are anti-abortion but unlike some people down here who are anti-abortion, Inuit do not just pay lip service to the issue of abortion or anti-abortion. They practise what they preach. If they are against abortion, it is because they are prepared to take care of the children whether they be of single mothers or relatives. They are prepared to adopt and again, there is no stigma in adoption. When I was adopted I knew exactly who my natural parents were as well as my adopted parents, and so do my five adopted children. They know exactly who their natural parents are or who their natural parent is, in some cases. When I say they practise what they preach, that is exactly what it is.
In the Eastern Arctic there are no receiving homes for unwanted children. That is because all children are adopted. I would like to ask-and again, I do not condone abortion as birth control-those people who want to either restrict or even tighten the bill, how many are taking care of unwanted children that they got because they cared enough, and did not condone abortion. I am sure there are some, as the hon. member across just raised his hand, but I think the question is how many of those people who demonstrate in the streets against abortion, whether it be here, in Toronto or Vancouver, have children that they took because they cared enough about homeless children. I think that many of them would be hard pressed to admit that they have any.
I think that when women are pro-choice, it does not mean that they take abortion lightly. I think when women decide to have an abortion, it is not just one day deciding: "Well, I am going to get pregnant and I am
going to have an abortion." I do not think it is that simple. I think when women make the decision to have an abortion, it is an agonizing and very painful decision. I find it very difficult to believe that those decisions are made lightly. How can you inflict punishment on a person who, after very agonizing, painful thinking, has decided to have an abortion? How can you inflict criminal charges against that person?
If we were in an ideal world, we would not have abortion. However, the fact remains that there are women who are going to continue to have abortions and, frankly, that is probably the way life is at this point.
I would like to state that I am going to be voting against this bill because it criminalizes women when the decision to have an abortion is a very, very personal one.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak at report stage of Bill C-43,1 want to make it very clear at the outset that I will be voting against Bill C-43 on third reading. At report stage I will oppose all of the proposed amendments except for Motion No. 24, which stands in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
In an issue which touches personal conscience such as this one does, I have the greatest of respect for the feelings and opinions of all members which they hold very deeply.
Abortion has been an issue that has been very difficult for some people more than others. I suspect particularly some of them on the government side feel themselves torn by conflicting loyalties. All of us have those at times, but I think it probably bears more so on some members of the cabinet. As an individual who shares accommodation with some of those members, I must say that I appreciate the agony I am sure that they are going through.
In the contemporary lexicon of the abortion debate, I am unequivocally pro-choice and make no apology for it. I hold this view not because it is the position of my party. In fact I have argued on numerous occasions that it is in my opinion not the sort of issue which should be enshrined as a party issue or policy, because like religion or creed it is more properly a matter of individual conscience, personal philosophy and individual choice.
May 23, 1990

This has caused some difficulty for some members of my party, not here in the House of Commons but in the constituency and elsewhere, who during election campaigns have been active members of Pentecostal assemblies and do not hold a pro-choice point of view. Regardless of that, because we agree on a multitude of issues we have actively campaigned for our party and for myself when I have unequivocally taken a pro-choice point of view. I feel the discomfort that I know that they have felt on occasion.
Intolerance is not something that is exclusive to any particular political philosophy or creed. We all have our problems at times. It is difficult in the heat of debate to accord to all others the rights and full respect that we demand for ourselves.
I am pro-choice because I believe firmly that only the individual most closely affected, the woman, the potential mother, has the right ultimately to determine whether or not a pregnancy should be brought to term. In the final analysis she and she alone has the right to determine whether she will bear a child and when: not me, not us, not the police, not the courts, and not the criminal law.
Nothing could be more abhorrent or inappropriate than for the state to impose values on people regarding such an intensively personal issue as whether or not someone shall bear children. That is a woman's right. Women have shown throughout history, often at great cost to themselves, that they will exercise the right to choose regardless of risk or law, whether the law is religious, civil or criminal.
Rights exist not because we grant them, not because the law grants rights or society grants rights. Rights exist not because we grant them, not because the law grants rights, or society grants rights. Rights exist because people claim them and exercise them, often at great cost to themselves. When a large number of individuals have consistently shown that in order to exercise what they believe to be their fundamental rights they have to place themselves at risk, it does not behove us to impose our values by using the state or the law to try to force them to do otherwise.
That is bad law. It is bad law in this case. It is bad law in labour relations. It is bad law in a whole host of other areas. All that kind of action means-and regardless of
Government Orders
our point of view on this issue we all know it-is that women who claim this fundamental right to choose will continue to do so regardless of the penalties and regardless of the risk to themselves. If we pass such a law, it will simply bring the law and the institutions which pass and enforce those laws into contempt. We do not need any more of that than we already have in this day and age.
Do we really want to force women or large numbers of women to risk their lives as they have done before or be branded as criminals or sent to jail for exercising what they understandably regard as their right to choose whether or not to give birth? I do not want that, and I will not be a party to imposing my values on them.
With regard to values I said earlier that I have always resisted those people-whether they are on the right, on the left, or in the centre, no party is excluded-who from time to time want to use the law to impose their personal values or their moral judgments upon others or upon society. That is not my role, and I do not believe it should be our role.
I would like to make a few personal comments on the matter of language. A lot of very charged language has been used in this debate back and forth across the country. We have heard the phrase unborn children or unborn babies being used instead of the term fertilized eggs or foetuses or whatever.
I am not a religious person in the classical sense, but I value life every bit as much as someone who believes that all life has been created by a divine being. I believe that all life exists as a result of an infinitesimal number of accidents of fate over an infinitesimal number of years, trillions of years, beyond reckoning. I think that perhaps I regard it even more preciously because I do not believe that that combination of circumstances could ever likely occur again. I am not one who believes that there is a creator that is going to give us a second chance some day if we do not manage right now. I do not question the importance that others put on life, but I put just as much importance on it.
The whole debate of when life begins is a very moot point. I have no great certainty as to that point. I cannot accept the view of others who say: "Bang, this is when it starts." Life is an ongoing process. Life exists in a tree. It exists in an ant. It exists in the foetus. It exists in an individual human being who acts independently. I also

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
believe in social order, and I know we sometimes have to reach compromises on that.
In conclusion I want to say as a personal note that my wife and I have three children and have been married almost 30 years. I have a daughter. If as a teenager she were to have come to me and asked my counsel-this would have been a few years ago-because through an act of neglect or passion she found herself to be pregnant, probably in those circumstances I would have suggested that her life might be better and that she would have a better chance to have a happy life and a happy family in the future if she did have an abortion. There is no way that I would impose that on her. I would be one of the sources of counsel that she would seek, but it would be her decision. I would also tell her that regardless of what decision she took I would stand by her. As a society we need to provide nurturing, to provide the means for people to be capable of making that independent judgment, and not to impose our values or criminal sanctions on them for doing what comes naturally, that is to decide for themselves whether or not they shall bear children.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon. This is actually the last opportunity that I will have to speak prior to the very crucial votes that will take place later today.
Initially, after proposing the amendments that I had to offer, I had not intended on speaking again prior to the vote that will take place tonight. I listened attentively yesterday and today to the remarks of my colleagues on both sides of the House, members of parliament, some who agree with me and some who profoundly disagree. Of course I believe all of them feel very strongly about their particular point of view and most-and I say "most"-are respectful of the point of view of others.
It is with sadness that I use the word "most" rather than the word "all" for the following reasons: a few members have seen fit during this debate to state that I was unqualified to speak on this issue because I am a man. If I were to say that the members in question who made those remarks cannot speak of building bridges because they are women, I would be condemned and
rightfully so. Of course I never have, nor do I intend to. All members representing constituents in this House are equal and worthy regardless of sex, age, gender, colour or otherwise. It is unfortunate that some people saw fit to utilize that argument. I suppose it only weakens the other strong arguments that they may have had.
However, that sadness having been stated, perhaps we should speak of the issue at hand rather than allow myself to stoop to the level that they have chosen to utilize to make their respective points in the House of Commons. Instead I would like to take this last opportunity to urge colleagues to vote for a number of the amendments offered to us.
The last colleague who spoke did raise a number of interesting points. I do not agree with his point of view, but I do think he expressed it quite well. He said, I believe, that he did not know whether life started at conception. I suppose I agree with his proposition there too. I do not know either. Unless someone proves otherwise, what else am I to conclude? If we know that human life is there at birth, it must have been achieved some time before birth. If no one indicates to me at which time before birth it occurs, then I am to assume that it was there from the beginning unless proven otherwise. That, I believe, is the only reasonable conclusion to arrive at. I am still awaiting anyone who challenges that proposition to indicate specifically at what time it is they feel my proposition is wrong. Mr. Speaker, whenever we are collectively and individually as a society afraid of an issue, I suppose we resort to words that tend to hide the facts that we are afraid of. A child born is obviously a child; a child unborn is a foetus-which means a young one in Latin-so my colleagues who are medical doctors tell me. Why do we use Latin, versus English or French, other than to specifically avoid using words that are uncomfortable to us? But we seem to use these words quite comfortably when they suit our individual purposes.
I have here a cover from a package of cigarettes which was given to me by another colleague, because I do not smoke. On this cover of the package of cigarettes, it says: "Smoking during pregnancy can harm the baby". It does not harm the "foetus"; it does not harm the "embryo"; it does not harm anything else. But it harms the "baby" during pregnancy.
May 23, 1990

Other colleagues have gone to great pains to tell us that it is not a baby, it is a foetus. I suppose those colleagues will want to make the cigarette manufacturers aware of the fact that they have this horrible mistake, according to them, on the jacket of this cigarette box.
I have an article here from the Canadian Press which refers to an incident which happened in Kingston, Ontario. A woman had been prescribed the wrong medicine which could result in her unborn child dying prior to birth. In other words, it could have resulted in an abortion. I quote from the article:
"At night I have dreams about what might happen to my child,''said
Mrs. Debney, 23. "We still have another five months to go before we
know what happens to the baby."
As I said in my speech yesterday, what we have is a situation where if we seem to want the child to be born, there is no hesitation in calling the child a baby. If we do not want the child, then it becomes the foetus. As I indicated yesterday, the child is not a child by virtue of the fact that we want it or not; the child is a child because that is what the child is, and that is the end of it.
To that extent I invite colleagues to reflect upon that when they are called upon later today to vote on the various amendments, particularly Motion No. 10, because it is that amendment which would change the bill in such a way as to give value to human life. I suppose other amendments will do so, but I believe to a lesser degree.
In conclusion, I just want to inform the House of how I intend to vote later today.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to support Motions Nos. 4, 5,10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17A and B,-although in the case of 17A, this Motion may have very little impact-Motion No. 19 and Motion No. 22. I intend to vote against Motion No. 24. Of course, I repeat what I said several days ago: If Motion No. 10 is not passed, I will have to vote against this bill on third reading.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I urge all hon. members to examine their consciences thoroughly, whether they agree with me or not, and to vote according to their conscience. I know that will be the case with our hon. members across the way, because there is no discipline in
Government Orders
their caucus, any more than there is in mine. Members are free to vote any way they want.
I hope all members will have that choice. And since we are talking about free choice, I think we should all have the free choice to vote for protecting human life.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough- Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion.
When the Prime Minister indicated that his government would bring forward a bill on abortion during this session of Parliament, there was a collective sigh of relief across the country. That relief, however, was quickly shattered with the introduction of this bill. Bill C-43 completely fails to address the painful issue that is troubling this country's conscience.
I realize this is not a decision to be made lightly. I intend to vote against the bill in its present form. I believe this bill is a bad piece of legislation. Many of my constituents from the riding of Scarborough-Agincourt believe as I do, that human life begins at conception and must be protected by law at all stages of development.
Once we come to the unavoidable conclusion that the foetus is a human being, we must then come to the conclusion that this person must be given full protection of the law as would be given to any child in Canada today.
It is absolutely deplorable that anyone can say that a procedure which kills one human being for the convenience of another is a medical procedure. In simple terms, abortion is the killing of a human being and cannot be accepted. If we do not believe in life, then what can we believe in? Where is the value system? 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.
I did not vote for Bill C-43 on second reading. Though I was disappointed that the bill reached committee stage, I hoped we would see some substantial amendments after the legislative committee had an opportunity to thoroughly examine the bill clause by clause. This was obviously not the case. I had hoped for an entirely different bill from the one we see before us today.

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
The abortion issue has not been rectified. The bill still does not recognize the fundamental value and dignity of each human being and the worth of each human life. I ask members of the House to consider the lives of unborn children above all else.
The only amendment that I can in conscience support is the one put forward by my colleague from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell which removes the word "health" from the bill. This would end any dubious claims of mental, emotional, fiscal or other reasons of so-called health which could be encompassed by such a broad definition.
This bill was flawed from the outset, and I dare say would not stand up constitutionally in a court of law. Therefore, it should not be before us at this time. It is obvious that the government, in choosing to put forward this bill at this particular time, decided it does not wish to deal with the real matter at hand, which is that of foetal rights.
The passage of this bill will lay open the door to medical experimentation upon the pre-born and would also leave open the question of usage of foetal tissue for dubious medical purposes.
I would also like to express my disappointment in the government's decision not to allow the free vote on this bill as was promised and expected.
I read in the paper today that some of my colleagues on the other side, members of cabinet, who are pro-life supporters will vote in favour of the bill. That saddens me. The constraints placed upon cabinet ministers to support this abortion bill is unconscionable.
I call upon all my colleagues in the House to give thought to why we are not addressing the real issues here today and to defeat this bill so that a comprehensive bill that looks at all the issues of foetal rights could be brought forward, or failing that, the rights of the unborn be placed where they rightfully belong, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this is not a compromise bill. It is a bill to recriminalize abortion. These are not compromise amendments. In fact, most of them are extreme, punitive and repugnant to women.
The Minister of Justice claims that the federal government must occupy the field on abortion. The field has not been occupied for two years, yet the numbers of abortions in Canada have not increased and the field does not appear to need to be occupied.
The minister says that this bill provides a delicate balance between both sides of the issue. I think not. This bill has failed on both sides of the question and there is no real balance at all. The women of Canada do not believe that this bill is giving us balance on both sides of the question.
The minister says that this bill respects constitutional guarantees. The women of Canada do not believe this bill respects constitutional guarantees, and most of the amendments fly in the face of constitutional guarantees. This bill is not an accommodation of common ground, as the minister says, that respects individual rights and freedoms. The women of Canada do not believe that it is the accommodation of common ground.
As a woman, I have been offended by many of the speeches in this House on the amendments to this bill, and indeed, by many of the amendments that have been put forward. The amendments to this bill suggest that women cannot be trusted. If men could be trusted to take their share of responsibility for birth control, we would not be having the debate on these amendments in this House today.
Let me deal specifically with the amendments. Motions Nos. 4 and 22 are amendments that, if passed, would increase the criminal penalty for doctors who perform abortions from two to 20 years. These amendments also have the side effect of increasing criminal penalties for women who have abortions. Obviously, these are not amendments that most Canadians, men or women, can subscribe to.
Motion No. 5 proposes that a legal abortion can only be performed by a medical practitioner. Essentially, this amendment imposes the threat of a two-year jail term and criminal record for a woman who induces her own abortion. If a woman is desperate enough to self-induce an abortion, she needs medical help and access to safe, affordable medical services. She does not need to be thrown in jail. Women self-induce an abortion only when they cannot get safe medical abortions or if the procedure is too costly.
May 23, 1990

Having a criminal penalty hanging over women's heads is not a deterrent, as we can see from the numbers of self-induced abortions that occurred when abortion was completely illegal. It is still illegal in some countries.
Motion No. 10, the motion that the member who just spoke said that he would support particularly, if passed, would mean that the only legal abortions would be those performed in order to save the life of the woman. Even abortions performed for the woman's health would be illegal. This is the most severe and cruel of all of the amendments associated with high maternal mortality rates. It is also the most controlling of women's bodies. Essentially, it is the former Romanian abortion law. There are only a few countries in the world left that still have this type of law.
While I am on the subject of the speech by that hon. member, I would like to point that he took exception to the fact that somebody in the debate disqualified him because he was a man. He tried to use the analogy of building a bridge. The ability to bear children and the consequences of that ability are quite different from the ability to build a bridge. Unfortunately, it is that kind of analogy that I think would disqualify him from speaking with any kind of authority on the question of abortion.
Motion No. 12 adds that in order for an abortion to be legal, a woman's life or health must be seriously endangered. This is an unconstitutional amendment. It contradicts the opinion expressed by Chief Justice Brian Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada. In the Morgentaler case that struck down the old abortion law, he said that forcing a women by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus an infringement of the security of the person.
Motion No. 13 would change the bill to state that an abortion should be legal only if there is no other medical treatment available to alleviate the health risk to the woman. This amendment plays upon the government's own wording that the only legal abortions are those performed for the woman's health. It takes the govern-
Government Orders
ment's bad bill and makes it worse. Health is not the issue-unwanted pregnancy is.
Motion No. 14 would strike out the definition of health in the bill which states:
"health" includes, for greater certainty, physical, mental and
psychological health;
Medical professionals who appeared before the legislative committee complained that the health criteria in the bill were already too vaguely defined. This motion only exacerbates that.
Motions Nos. 16, 17A and 17B all change the definition of health in the bill to exclude psychological health considerations.
Motion No. 19 is a bizarre amendment. It would change the bill by clarifying medical opinions of whether or not to grant abortions should be developed, not only according to generally accepted medical standards as expressed in the bill, but also by considering the solid body of scientific knowledge.
Motion No. 20 would make the IUD and the morning-after pill illegal. I do not think that this amendment even requires further debate.
Motion No. 24, which would strike out the entire bill, would leave only one sentence which would state that Sections 287 and 288 of the Criminal Code are repealed. This motion in fact is the motion that addresses the inequities of the government's bill. This is the motion that most of my colleagues, and most people who want to reflect the needs of Canadian women, will support when we vote tonight.
In closing, I say that it is very sad that what the government has said about a woman's rights-her right to be a full participant in Canadian society-tells Canadian women where they stand with the government. It is this: "You are free and you can fully participate, as long as you understand that we do not trust your ability to make correct choices".


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I feel very privileged and honoured to be able to participate in debate a second time on Bill C-43, this time at report stage.
In my previous vocation as an educator I taught students, and I taught teachers to teach students, certain values in life. Some of those values were based on the three Rs. Those three Rs were not reading, 'ritin' and arithmetic. The three Rs were respect, respect, and

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
respect-respect for authority, respect for property, and respect for others.
If all Canadians today had a greater respect for the authority of the federal government, then maybe we would not be in the mess we are in. If all Canadians had a greater respect for property, then maybe our environment would not be in such jeopardy. If all Canadians had respect for others, then maybe we would not have this heated debate over whether we should allow a foetus to live or not.
I have carried these values into politics. Because I have this deep respect for others, which means respect for life, I cannot support Bill C-43 as it stands. To me, life begins at conception. Unless someone proves otherwise, I have to go on that belief.
I want to congratulate all those speakers who have debated this bill at second reading and report stage for the seriousness with which they have dealt with this problem. I want to congratulate those who promoted the pro-choice ideology, and the ones who promoted the pro-life ideology. I am convinced that both sides spoke very sincerely. They believe in what they told us. They are going to vote according to what they believe in. I am pleased that at least the two major parties are allowing us to vote according to our conscience.
I am a little disappointed in the New Democratic Party because I thought that it was the party which respects individual thoughts and ideas. I appeal to its members that on this issue they make an exception. Rather than vote as a party, let the members vote according to their conscience. In speaking to some members of the New Democratic Party, I know that their feelings are pro-life feelings also. That is an appeal to the New Democratic Party.
I also appeal to the people who believe in the prochoice ideology. We have heard the statements: "It's my body. I will decide what I want to do with it", et cetera. That argument breaks down because, in that free choice, two lives are at stake. If the choice was made just for one life, okay, I could maybe accept it, but the decision made affects two human beings. As a result of that, I cannot accept it.
Judgments of jurisprudence have been made to recognize clearly that the foetus is a human being. If a woman who is pregnant gets killed in a car accident, courts have
ruled that two people are killed. The case is treated with greater seriousness and gravity. Also, if a human being who was a foetus during the course of an accident survives, then he or she can sue the person causing the accident. Legislators and judges in the past must have recognized that the foetus is a human being.
The member for Vancouver East called the amendments that we brought in punitive and paternalistic. I would ask her to look at the amendments brought in by the members for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Winnipeg North, as well as the amendment of the member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. These amendments would strengthen Bill C-43 to protect the lives of the unborn. If these amendments were accepted, then I might be able to vote in favour of the bill.
I took a very extensive poll in my riding of Parkdale- High Park. People supporting both ideologies, the prolife ideology and the pro-choice ideology, have urged me to vote against this bill. At this point I do not think we know the outcome of Bill C-43. In talking to members individually, they are also going to look at which amendments will be accepted and which ones will not.
But whichever way the vote goes, I would like to recommend through you, Mr. Speaker, that the government introduce a national education program on this issue. The government can call it the national education program on life, or whatever title it wants, but there should be a national program funded by the federal government, supervised by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The curriculum for this program would have to be written with input from the provinces, since the provinces have jurisdiction over education; from people who are supporting the pro-life ideology; from the prochoice people; from the medical profession; and from religious groups. By having a curriculum taught in all schools across the country, hopefully fewer young teenagers would get pregnant and have to make that very serious decision. In many cases, whichever decision is made, there are very deep-rooted emotional problems that follow.
In closing, I again appeal to the government to bring in a national education program on this issue, whichever way the vote goes.
May 23, 1990


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my concerns regarding Bill C-43 as the member of Parliament for Beaver River, but I also want to voice the concerns of my constituents. Certainly, I have a personal feeling about this issue, but I am responsible for my constituents.
I want to speak today obviously as a woman, but I believe firmly that this is not just a woman's issue. It certainly is a family issue and an issue that faces all of us as a society.
My party calls for a candidate to let constituents know how he or she feels about the abortion issue. Then, if there is a consensus in the riding, the member of Parliament must vote according to the collective wishes of the constituents as determined by a referendum, such as a questionnaire, or at public meetings that determine whether or not there is a clear consensus. If there is no clear consensus, then the member of Parliament must vote according to his or her conscience and, of course, they have let that be publicly known while campaigning.
This approach certainly is somewhat different than we have traditionally seen from many members of Parliament. ffistory shows that MPs often have gone directly against the wishes of the majority of their constituent's wishes and said that they want to go for their conscience alone and vote on behalf of that. Unfortunately, we know that it is not just a member's conscience that got them elected. They had only one vote to cast on election day. They were voted in by many electors to whom they are responsible. A member of Parliament gets only one vote in the Elouse of Commons and that is not a personal vote, necessarily, but one vote on behalf of their entire riding.
I want to make it publicly known, and I have told my constituents in Beaver River, that I am pro-life. I am not ashamed of those views. In fact, it makes me proud to be able to say that I believe in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception. Those who deny that life begins at conception, deny the fundamental issue of life itself. A life cannot begin just at birth. If there had not been union nine months before, obviously there would be no live birth.
If we tiy to determine at what point life occurred, or whether or not an embryo a foetus is a life, then we miss the point of life itself. A human life begins at the
Government Orders
moment of conception, not before and not after. Whether we like it or not, science dictates, not semantics.
I conducted the closest thing that I could to a referendum in my riding. The results were very interesting. The totals were 60 per cent to 40 per cent pro-life, with people in those categories saying that they could make exceptions. Exceptions could be made in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the woman is in danger.
I will be voting that way at third reading, unless Motion No. 10 specifically goes through tonight at report stage.
Regardless of the fact that everyone has different views, whether pro-life or pro-choice, it seemed to me that the people in my riding felt very serious frustration and misgivings about this particular bill.
In fact, Bill C-43 unfortunately satisfies neither end of the spectrum. Those at the pro-life end of the spectrum say that this bill does nothing more than give abortion on demand, and they are very, very concerned about the idea of psychological health as is stated in Bill C-43. Those at the pro-choice end of the spectrum are upset about Bill C-43 because, first, it goes back into the Criminal Code and they do not want that and, second, there is no access for healthy women to have abortions. No matter at what end of the spectrum people are, they are concerned about this bill.
I do believe that although I am pro-life and am not ashamed to admit that, as I said earlier, people say: "We are pro-choice and that is the way it is". I do believe that there is room for pro-choice. That choice rests with the individual about whether to become pregnant or not. That choice is for teenagers, whom I taught in high school, to become sexually active or not to be sexually active.
If a person does make the choice to be sexually active and they do become pregnant, then they have further choices open to them. Certainly, there is the adoption option, whether to keep the child or whether to have an abortion, but the choice is not just one choice, whether to have an abortion or not.
I will be voting for the amendments which strengthen this bill in favour of protection for the unborn and against the idea of psychological health, because it is so nebulous. I will be voting in favour of Motions Nos. 4, 22,

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, and, if 16 is defeated, then 17A as well as 19.
I know that many people are wishing to speak on this debate. I certainly admire the calibre of debate that has taken place in this chamber. In my year and a half here as a member, this is the bill to which the most respect has been paid. I appreciate that.
I would like to close off with a verse of scripture because we in Canada call ourselves a Christian nation, one that was founded on Christian principles. I believe that this sums it up when we are worried about the semantics of where life really begins. I think it is fairly clear when the psalmist David wrote in Psalm 139, verses 13 through 16:
Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb - I will praise thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. My substance was not hid from thee when I was made in secret-Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
I think it is very clear from that that life does begin at conception. I am pro-choice. I choose life.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-43 today.
I want to say at the outset, and make my position absolutely clear, that I support a woman's right to make a decision on whether or not she should terminate a pregnancy, and that that decision should be made between her and a doctor.
It is not a question that should be subject to legislation. In fact, if it should be a subject of any legislation, then I would make the argument that it should fall under the Canada Health Act. Once a woman has made that conscious decision to terminate a pregnancy, and once it has been agreed upon by her personal doctor, between both of them, then she should have access to proper medical treatment.
I am proud to take that position. I did not arrive at that conclusion today. I arrived at it many years ago and made my position absolutely clear in numerous election campaigns in my constituency of Beaches-Woodbine. Any time I was asked at all-candidates meetings or elsewhere I made it absolutely clear that that was my position.
I do not want to deal with the legalities. I think there has been far too much debate about the legalities involved. It is a basic question of human rights and especially the rights of women.
If this government were serious about trying to minimize the number of abortions in this country, it would do things other than cut back on programs which actually encourage abortions to take place.
Starting with the previous government and since this government came to power, there have been reductions to family allowance programs and the clawback of benefits. There have been reductions in funding for women's programs. There have been drastic reductions in family planning and family counselling programs. All of those programs have been cut, as well as the child care program for which this government promised to increase funding but has never come through on.
I do not doubt the sincerity of people who hold a position opposite to mine. I respect such a point of view, even though I do not share it, because this is a deeply moral issue for many people. I accept that. I do not necessarily agree with them, but I at least accept it.
There is an argument which is continually being made, mainly by men, but I have heard it made by women, that if a woman chooses to become pregnant, she has to carry that child through conception to birth because she allowed herself to get pregnant. It has been a long time since a woman got herself pregnant. It seems to me that there are two people responsible for that pregnancy.
I could make an equally strong argument that the weight of responsibility lies with the man, not with the woman. When I hear members like the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell suggest that the penalty for anyone contravening this legislation should be increased from two years in prison to 20 years in prison based on specious arguments that compare a pregnant woman to someone in a speedboat hauling someone along on a pair of water skis, it is simply not acceptable to me. There is no comparison. I am trying to keep the rhetoric low, but I think it is a stupid argument and it displays something about the approach that some people bring to this debate. I think it lowers the level of debate.
May 23, 1990

The question before this House and before the country in 1990 should be whether or not a woman is a piece of property. This bill continues the argument that women are property.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Give me a break.


Neil Young: The hon. member asks me to give him a break. I am trying to give him a break. I am trying to keep the debate on a level of some truth. If the hon. member wants to get up and dispute what I am saying, let him do it, but to sit there and heckle me for making a statement is not acceptable to me. Get on your feet and tell us what you think.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: I did.


Neil Young: Well, get up again. You will have another opportunity, and then I will respond to you, my friend.
The question is whether in 1990 a woman is viewed as being a person responsible enough to make a decision on her own. I think she is. This bill, by placing abortion back in the Criminal Code, is going to be making criminals out of an awful lot of women and an awful lot of people in the medical profession. I would put money on it that in a few years from now we will be faced with a larger problem than we are today without this bill.
I will be voting against the amendments before the House today except for Motion No. 24. I do not agree that any of the amendments which have been put forward will help women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. I think probably Motion No. 24 would do that. If we have to live with this bill-which I certainly hope we will not have to-then I would adopt Motion No. 24 to get rid of it because that is what Motion No. 24 will do.
When that amendment comes before the House this evening I urge members to vote in favour of Motion No. 24, and defeat the rest of them.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult and thorny issue that pleases no one. It is difficult to resolve, whichever side of the issue you find yourself on. The minister said that a delicate balance was what was required.
I originally voiced my opinion on this bill when it was first tabled. I said that there were very serious flaws in it. However, in the democratic process in which we are
Government Orders
fortunate enough to live, I voted that the bill go to a legislative committee for serious study and evaluation. At that time groups which were particularly concerned, including women, medical practitioners and families could be heard so that we would be able to bring forward amendments that would improve the bill. We could then decide if the minister's view, that putting this in the Criminal Code would be the only way to ensure access and to ensure fair payment with respect to a medical procedure, that a woman would have the right to choose, if she so desired.
At that time I considered that the bill was flawed. However, I thought that we had the obligation to send it to a legislative committee. It was sent to a legislative committee. The government has indicated that it is not interested in any kind of amendments. It is resisting all amendments saying that they would unbalance the very delicate compromise that has been found in this bill. It is not prepared to consider any kind of amendment.
A woman's right to choice, her right to consult a doctor, which I consider to be very important, not for his permission but for his advice and guidance so that she could make an enlightened decision was what was important when this bill was studied in the legislative committee. I do not believe that what was heard is faithfully reflected in the kind of amendments that we have before us. The majority of these amendments are very one-sided.
I am concerned about the constitutionality of this bill. I recall for you, Mr. Speaker, the opinion that was expressed by Chief Justice Brian Dickson of the Supreme Court on the Morgentaler case, which struck down the old abortion law. He said that forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus an infringement on security of the person.
I do not believe that this bill would meet a test of constitutionality. I also believe that where the foetus needs some protection-and that was also indicated in the decision of the court-that protection is not to be found in this bill.
A woman's right to choice, not permission, a woman's right to make decisions on her own reproductive obligations has been a conflict which has been present

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
throughout history. It indicates that abortions will happen. If you close the door to any kind of option, you can be sure that we will be back into some very serious medical health problems. We have been without an abortion bill, or without any constraints on access to the right to terminate a pregnancy if a woman wishes, and we have not seen an increase in any abortions. Ninety-nine per cent of those abortions take place before 12 weeks.
I think that we are going to have to trust women. I think women deserve to be trusted. They will make the right choice. I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the number and spacing of children in a society that is free of violence, free of abuse, free from hunger, free from poverty, free from rape and incest are all factors that families take into consideration, but the final decision must be that of a woman in consultation with her doctor. She makes the final decision.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything in this bill that would ensure, either through the Canada Health Act or the Criminal Code, the kinds of things that I feel are necessary to enable a woman to enjoy and rejoice in the pregnancy and in the anticipation of a child being added to her life. This is not found in this bill.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the threat of legal action, which could persuade many doctors to stop performing abortions and many women to fear ending up as criminals within our criminal justice system, does not answer the needs of this society.
The delicate balance has not been found. We have not found the proper kind of accommodation. Respect for constitutional guarantees has not been tested or found in this bill. Respect for individual rights and freedom of personal decision is not found in this bill. Because these issues have not been addressed, I would choose to vote against all amendments at this time and I will certainly vote against the bill at third reading.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that I too will vote against this bill on third reading, as I did on second reading, and as I did on first reading.
The only possible amendment I can see myself supporting is that amendment of my colleague in the New Democratic Party for New Westminster-Burnaby.
I stand here, Mr. Speaker, feeling sad about what we are doing. I am unhappy about the way the government is treating Canadian women. Perhaps I should not be surprised, but I was one of those members who considered Bill C-43 in the legislative committee. We listened to women from every province and territory in this country. We listened to cries from the heart from these women. We heard stories of horror about conditions that women and children are forced to live in. We heard stories that would have been laughable were they not so sad, about the lack of access to medical care, the lack of access to proper contraception, the lack of access to proper education, the lack of access to a social service support network.
What was painted for us in that committee was a Canada that is not friendly to women and particularly not friendly to the children that we have within our care today.
I recall very clearly the presentation to the committee of Shirley Carr of the Canadian Labour Congress. She said to us: "I was here 25 years ago making the same plea. I cannot believe that we have progressed so little that I am back again 25 years later saying the same things".
This bill is an insult to both sides. On one hand, it says that abortion is illegal. On the other hand, it says that here is an exception so large that anyone who is prepared to make a few concessions here and there about what is actually going on will be able to slide through. Canadian women do not want to concoct stories. They do not want to have to worry that someone, a neighbour, a disgruntled ex-husband, a disgruntled boyfriend will lay a charge over something as personal and as personally agonizing as the question of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.
Another thing I think women on the legislative committee had in common was the idea that if one is in favour of a woman's right to control her own body, to self-determination, that one is pro-abortion. Let that phrase be thrown out now and forever. The majority of Canadians who support the option for choice are not pro-abortion. We all know that, as an option, abortion is

May 23, 1990

a last resort. It is one with which no one is happy. It is one with which no one is comfortable. It is one that Canadian women wish they did not have to choose.
If this country were all it could be, abortion is an option that Canadian women would rarely, if ever, choose.
The polarization that this debate has created leaves women and children as victims. We expend time and energy arguing the question of abortion and choice and arguing legislation brought forward, and we spend time and money on committees et cetera. These are energies of people who must come forward to speak to committies which would be far better spent in solving the social problems that create the need for abortion. Nobody in this chamber is going to be prepared to say that poverty or child and wife abuse do not exist in this country. We know they do. All too frequently we see incidents of this. Violence in the family against women and children is something that is a norm in Canadian life.
I do not think anyone in this Chamber would have the temerity to rise and suggest that as a society we properly educate our children or our citizenry in general on sexuality, on responsibility or on what it is to maintain adult relationships, giving them the proper intellectual wherewithal to choose when to begin them.
Nobody, after sitting in the legislative committee and listening to the lack of access to proper medical care across the country suffered by so many women, could possibly say that women can make a choice freely in our society as it exists today.
Contraception is not adequate for vast numbers of Canadian women. Education in sexuality has left many women and children short of the mark in knowing what it is they must do. The lack of facilities has left them, in many regions of the country, with an inability to get the facilities and the contraception they need.
With those situations existing, the option of abortion for many is the only option. I heard the expression from one of the witnesses that if you make your bed, then you must lie in it and this was said with sort of a sneer. It is absolutely unbelievable to me in 1990 that we still treat women and children in the manner in which we do, and that we still look at situations of human misery as ones where punishment must be inflicted. Canadian women know what they need and what is necessary to ensure
Government Orders
that our society is fair and just. They know that they do not have it.
Whatever happens with this law, it will not change one thing. While social problems exist, such as violence against women and children, and a lack of care in our society for those who need it, then abortion will exist.
The only question to be answered by individual members of the House when they vote is whether abortion will be performed in a safe medical facility or whether it will exist outside these safeguards, because no legislation will stop abortion while society condones the treatment of women and children that we see before us today. Violence against women has been part of our history and that, sadly, will be part of our future. The only question we have to ask is, do you want abortion performed in a safe situation or do you want it performed in an unsafe situation?
I suggest that these amendments do nothing to improve the situation for women and children in this country. These amendments, if passed, will do nothing to improve a bill which is a flawed and unacceptable piece of legislation.
I suggest that the Government of Canada leave these decisions to the women of Canada, but that the Government of Canada take the necessary steps to create a climate wherein the women of Canada can make these choices freely, with the proper knowledge, the proper equipment and in a proper atmosphere which gives dignity and value to human life. If we do not treat the lives we have on this earth and in this country with dignity, then there is no reason to suppose that women who give life will want to do so.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, after 22 years in the House, this is the third time I have spoken on this issue. One wonders when society in general and successive governments in particular will take action that will substantially reduce, if not eliminate, the demand or the perceived need for an abortion.
I do not support abortion on demand totally, and I have said so frequently. I oppose it as a method of birth control or as an irresponsible solution for misbehaviour. That is a choice which I have made myself and one that each of us has to make individually.

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
I say to my pro-life colleagues that I respect their views and deeply held convictions. But, to merely sit still and wring your hands and tinker with legal machinery is not opposition. That is blind adherence to a dogma. Making abortions legal or illegal does nothing toward solving the problem-and witness prohibition outlawing liquor which did not stop people from drinking.
Canada's social structure is presently so poorly balanced that it invites violence of which abortion can be seen as one form. It is in redressing this inequality that I and my colleagues are engaged. Ultimately, a just society will have fewer invitations to this kind of violence. I have constantly fought and worked for, as my colleagues have, legislation to support troubled families and unduly burdened women so that the real or perceived need to resort to abortion will become obsolete.
It seems to me that women do not resort to abortion just because they suddenly do not love babies. It is because they find themselves caught in a frightening and terrifying squeeze: no housing, no job, no husband, no help, no acceptance, no love, no support.
I hope with the work of all of us in the House of Commons that we can restructure society to make it hospitable to life so that any child brought into this world would not go wanting or be so disadvantaged that no one would want to undertake that child's sustenance. To decry abortion without the restructuring of society is to beat the air. We must have wide-sweeping reforms favouring social security for single parent families and other poor families. Do not talk to me about immorality. When government shows-this one and the preceding ones-the immorality of refusing to implement legislation on child care, it is an immorality that invites abortions.
We must have more affordable and accessible child care centres so that parents continue both their work and their education. We must have a legal requirement for every employer in Canada to provide for a minimum of two years' leave of absence for an employee who is becoming a new parent, with a real guarantee that that employee can return to the same or a better position with that employer.
Chartered banks must be directed to use a significant part of their funds to lower mortgage loans so that housing costs will no longer cripple young families struggling to make ends meet. Medicare of which we in
Saskatchewan are so proud must be strengthened and must become a norm for society all over Canada and the world. Federal funding must be available to the provinces to educate about all forms of birth control, starting in the schools, to encourage responsibility and decrease the ignorance that exists on the subject. Then each person may be informed and intelligently adopt a method of birth control that best meets one's own religious beliefs, economic situation, and family needs. There are, in short, many massive social changes that have to be made before we will see the day that the recourse to abortion is no longer the evident way out. There is much to be done. My colleagues and I invite all my colleagues in the government and the Official Opposition to join in redressing our social ills. The New Democratic Party is not interested in defending the wealthy. They have always been able to find an abortion somewhere, and I have had experience with that. We, on the contrary, are very concerned with helping those whom society has so shortchanged or ignores such that all other hope seems to have expired.
The statement of April 1973 by the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops has been of great help to me, and I want to quote it:
To be involved in the task of making this society hospitable to life is a foremost requirement of social justice. That is why we must take most seriously the rebuke that those who oppose abortion care too little about the special problems of mothers and the burdens of rearing children once they are born.
If respect for life seems to end with birth, our perceptions and values are truncated and incomplete. The call of Christ, that we should bear one another's burdens, demands that we reach out in practical ways to share all the burdens of parenthood. The indicated aid and support will include working to change economic and social realities in the direction of justice and respect for life. From doing this, we must not flinch.
Whatever law we have-and I would prefer we have none-must be equally enforced. Hospitals which are funded by taxpayers' dollars should provide the services the law allows.
When society demands and all levels of government implement the measures I have illustrated-and there are many others-then I believe we will see a dramatic reduction in the number of abortions; not a reduction because women will go somewhere else to have an abortion, but because thousands of Canadian women will no longer need to resort to abortion as the best or only avenue left open to them. They will have a real choice,
May 23, 1990

and though I am pro-choice, what kind of a choice do they have?
I ask my pro-life colleagues what a retarded 16 year old girl from a poor family made pregnant by a 19 year old brother is supposed to do? She has no help. What about a 15 year old girl made pregnant by a drunken father? What is she supposed to do? What is a woman made pregnant after a beating and a rape by a husband or other attacker, I ask my pro-life friends, supposed to do? Don't say adoption, because I can take you to a home in Regina to see a woman who should be a saint. She is looking after six children, two of whom are vegetables, no one will adopt. When I challenged the pro-life groups in my city that came to see me in my office on numerous occasions-and I always showed them the courtesy of hearing them out and meeting with them-to go to that home with me and adopt them, they said: "We will find some way to have them looked after". That is hypocrisy of the worst kind.
May I say in closing that while hundreds of thousands of kids in this country are homeless or hungry, we have no business passing legislation such as this. I will vote against all the amendments except Motion No. 24, and I will vote against the bill.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-43. As you know, it is not my custom to be talkative in the chamber, although I participate a lot in committee work. This is one bill before the House on which I think most members want to say something on this occasion.
I want to explain my position a little by indicating that I am neither from the classical pro-choice side nor the classical pro-life side. My position on abortion is somewhere in between. I listened to my colleague from Regina-Lumsden and I agreed with a number of points he made, although I do not think we see eye to eye on the subject.
As a nation and a government we should try to prevent the need for abortion by trying to give parents the education and the opportunity to take steps that preclude anyone wishing to have an abortion. This is the ideal way, obviously. I think that governments over the
Government Orders
years have failed to implement policies to the extent that they might to move in that direction.
Having said what is my position, as a physician I have been acquainted with the issue of abortions in a practical way having been involved with them from time to time. I must say that over the years, the longer I spend in the House, the more closely I come to the pro-life side, to the extent that I feel we should do all we can to discourage abortions when possible.
I was interested enough in this whole issue that when there was difficulty coming to a conclusion as to what kind of law we should have in this country and what kind of bills that come before the House, I was pleased to participate with other colleagues on the government side in a unique committee which came up with the bill that is before the House now, Bill C-43.
In spite of the fact that I would like to see abortions discouraged to the extent that is humanly possible, I would like to indicate my support for Bill C-43 for several reasons. I happen to believe that it is probably preferable to have some law in this nation that does indicate some concern and protection for the foetus. As I understand the interpretations given by the Supreme Court, I think the message we got from it too was that there was reason this Parliament might want to see some protection for the foetus. I can see that possibly that may well be coming down the road.
I had a lot of soul-searching to do with this bill. It is somewhat like the bills on capital punishment. I was involved in those two debates as well back in 1975 or 1976 and again more recently. Although those were bills that called for a free vote, as it were, they were slightly different. One could vote either for or against capital punishment, but here we are not voting for or against abortion. There are many situations in between. I see that the majority of Canadians, by the pollings that were done, are certainly in between this issue. The majority prefer not to be in the pure classic pro-life position or in the pure pro-choice position.
I was very impressed by what was done by the committee that was put together to bring forward a consensus on the bill before the House. It was co-chaired by two people. In terms of their own personal convictions, one was strongly pro-life and the other was strongly prochoice. To see those co-chairpersons and representatives

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
from various parts of the spectrum between the pro-life and pro-choice sides come together as a group and come up with Bill C-43 was very impressive.
I have actually had a number of representations from constituents. I have had many sincere letters, telephone calls and petitions from those who represent the pro-life side of this issue. I respect their position very deeply. I know how sincere they are about it. I know from whence they come and the source of their strong convictions based on religious background, training and scruples which I respect.
I am convinced that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was such that if we came up with a bill that would represent what it wanted us to do, we would probably find that law to be ruled unconstitutional when it was challenged and brought to the Supreme Court of Canada.
What impressed me the most was something I read recently in one of the journals that comes into our house. It is called Contact and is put out by people who have a very strong Christian conviction. The heading of an article on the front page of a recent edition read: "Christians urged to support pro-life abortion law amendments." The staff of the Calvanistic Contact wrote this article, but they quote extensively from Mr. Gerald Vandezande who is the public affairs director for Citizens for Public Justice, CPJ. They have been quoted here in the House previously during this debate.
I happen to know a bit of the background of Mr. Gerald Vandezande because he comes out of my constituency. I know his parents and I know the strong convictions that he and his family and others who belong to the same church as he belongs to in my area adhere to. I respect him very deeply. In fact, my wife comes out of that same tradition as well and I have a strong conviction for their position.
I want to read part of this article which impressed me. As I indicated, Mr. Vandezande is the public affairs director for Citizens for Public Justice and knowing him to be a committed pro-life person, he shows some insight which I think supports my position in favour of this bill. I want to quote from this article because I think it has some bearing on this issue. I am quoting now from the
article, not from what he said, although he is being paraphrased by the staff writer of this particular article:
At issue is whether Canada will have a law governing abortions or not. If Bill C-43 is defeated, with or without some of the proposed amendments, Parliament is likely to give up trying to bring forward an abortion bill.
I believe that to be true, Mr. Speaker. The article further states:
Christians may need to decide, says Vandezande, whether the bill now before Parliament is better than no abortion law at all.
This is something I have raised with many of my pro-life people, whether or not we should have no bill at all. When I am challenged to vote against this bill, I say that we may then have no bill at all. I happen to agree with what Mr. Vandezande is saying here, namely, that we have to decide whether the bill now before Parliament is better than no abortion law at all.
The article goes on for another sentence or two and states:
CPJ is urging all Christians to phone or write their MP - to vote for the most life-affirming legislation and social policy measures possible today.
I want to emphasize those last two words. He is calling upon us as Christians, calling upon Christians in Canada, to phone and write to us as MPs asking us "to vote for the most life-affirming legislation and social policy measures possible today".
It is my conviction, after sitting on the committee that came up with this bill, that this is the only bill that is going to gain the support of this House.
If the bill is amended either way, either on the pro-choice side or the pro-life side, it is going to be defeated and we will then have no bill at all.
I feel very strongly and I feel very much encouraged that somebody who comes from a very strong pro-life position has the courage and has the insight, I would have to say, to recognize the predicament that we as parliamentarians are in, and if we want to have any bill at all, and I think some bill is better than no bill, it is essential that we vote for Bill C-43.
Based on that, it is my intention this evening when the vote is called to vote against all the amendments, and come third reading of the bill, I will want to support it because I feel it is the one bill that will possibly and hopefully sustain the support of this House.
May 23, 1990

Government Orders


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island -Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on listening to the hon. member's presentation, a person over the years in whom I have had a great deal of confidence in his judgement and opinion. I do take exception to the statements made in the House concerning the legislation before us on the abortion issue.
I do not believe that this is a consensus bill at all, nor does anyone in the party that I represent. I think many of the members of the government are very upset with this particular piece of legislation. It is not a compromise. It is probably the worst choice that could have been made.
I am absolutely astounded that a bill could come before this House and generate the antipathy of both sides, that a bill could be presented in this House and be absolutely opposed by both the anti-choice and the pro-choice forces in this country. I would point out to the member that this bill is not better than not having a bill. This is a bad bill. The people who drafted it, presented it to this House, forced it on the government members and the Cabinet and are attempting to sell it as, a compromise, are doing a great disservice to this House.
We have missed the mark as legislators. The price we will pay is that in the next federal election we will be tom to pieces on the platform, as both sides of the issue, who will be completely dissatisfied with this, will carry this issue on. This Parliament is not finished with this issue because it is a bad bill.
All but one of the amendments are bad amendments. Virtually all of my colleagues have stood in this House to oppose the amendments that basically curtail the choice of women on an absolutely fundamental issue. It is wrong. I will vote against every single one of the amendments except the one proposed by my colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby. In the end I will vote against this bill.
It is my hope that other colleagues on all sides of this House will join myself and other members who believe this legislation is very detrimental to the work of Parliament and, indeed, to women in Canada and that they will also vote against this bill.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: Pursuant to order adopted on Thursday, May 10, the sitting is suspended until 9 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 6.36 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 9 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-43, An Act respecting abortion, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, and on Motions Nos. 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17A, 17B, 19, 22 and 24.
Mr. Speaker:: In order to assist hon. members, it is very important to pay attention, because the Chair must notify all hon. members.

It being nine o'clock, p.m. pursuant to Order made Thursday, May 10, 1990, it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion.

I will take a few minutes so that all hon. members can be present.

May I have your attention for a moment, please? I would ask hon. ministers and members on both sides of the House to take their seats.
If all hon. members would give me their attention for a moment, I can give some guidance which will help us all this evening. Strictly speaking, of course, I was required to announce that, it being nine o'clock, we would commence with these motions. In full realization that some members were in the lobby, I have delayed that. I hope that all members are here now.
I am going to proceed very slowly because these votes could become complicated and we do not want in any way to affect the democratic process by making an error.
It is important that you listen carefully to this. We are going to go through each of the motions, one after another, and there will be a voice vote only. We are going through each of the motions in the first round and

May 23, 1990
Government Orders
there will be a voice vote only. If the voice vote is clear with respect to an affirmative or a negative, I will say so. If five members rise, the vote will be deferred. When we have gone through all the motions with a voice vote, we will then come back to those motions that are remaining and there will be a formal vote.
What we are doing now is going through all the motions on a voice vote first. I want everybody to understand that, if all the Speaker hears is "yeas", then the Speaker will declare the motion passed with a voice vote. If all the Speaker hears are "nays", the Speaker will declare the motion negatived with a voice vote. If hon. members have doubt, five members standing will ensure that the vote is deferred so that there is a full vote of every member in the Chamber.

It is very important to understand the process and the procedure exactly. Every member must also pay attention.

The first question is on Motion No. 4, standing in the name of Mr. Boudria. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


An hon. member:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 22.
The next question is on Motion No. 5 standing in the name of Mr. Boudria.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than jive Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division is deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 10, standing in the name of Mr. Pagtakhan. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 12 standing in the name of Mr. Belsher. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 13, standing in the name of Mr. Reimer. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
May 23, 1990


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of Mr. Boudria.
Is is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 16, standing in the name of Mr. Pagtakhan. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.
Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred. Consideration of Motions No. 17A and 17B is also deferred.
Perhaps I can give an explanation to hon. members. Subsequent to deferring Motion No. 16 I declared as follows: "Consideration of Motions Nos. 17A and 17B is also deferred". Those matters are still in front of the House, and I do not want hon. members worrying that those motions have disappeared. They have not.
Are the hon. members satisfied that they understand the situation?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 19 standing in the name of Mr. Pagtakhan.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
I want to make something clear to hon. members. Because of the nature of Motion No. 24, procedurally it is not possible to proceed with it at this time. Having said that and depending on what happens in the recorded votes on all the other motions, Motion No. 24 may well be back in front of the House. I do not think I need to go into a lengthy explanation.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House. Call in the members.

May 23, 1990
Government Orders


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think you will find unanimous consent to dispense with the ringing of the bells at this time and proceed with the vote immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 4, standing in the name of Mr. Boudria. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 22, standing in the name of Mr. Boudria.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Therefore, I declare Motion No. 22 lost.
I want to bring to the attention of the House information which has just come to me. There was an error in my presentation of the motion, not one that is serious, but I



May 23, 1990

Government Orders
know that Mr. Pagtakhan did not second the motion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocheleau.
The next question is on Motion No. 5 standing in the name of Mr. Boudria.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 10 standing in the name of Mr. Boudria.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.	
The next question is on Motion No. 12 standing in the name of Mr. Belsher.	
The House divided	on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:	
(Division No. 260)
 YEAS Members	
Attewell	Belsher
Casey	Chadwick
Cole	Comuzzi
Corbett	Crawford
Domm	Edwards
Fee	Flis
Fontana	Fretz
Friesen	Grey (Beaver River)
Guilbault	Gustafson
Hopkins	Johnson
Jordan	Jourdenais
Karygiannis	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Kindy	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Littlechild	MacAulay
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Malone	Marchi
Marin	McCreath
McGuire	Nunziata
O'Kurley	Ouellet
Pagtakhan	Parent
Pickard	Porter
Pronovost	Proud
Reimer	Ricard
Robichaud	Saint-Julien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Scott (Hamilton -Wentworth)
Speller	Thompson
Vanclief	Van de Walle
Wenman Wilbee	White
Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek	-Assiniboia)-58
May 23, 1990

++NAYS
Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Althouse
Anderson
Angus
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Barrett
Belair
Benjamin
Bird
Black
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blenkarn
Bourgault
Brewin
Cadieux
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Catterall
Charest
Clark (Yellowhead)
Collins
Cooper
Cote
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Darling
de Cotret
Desjardins
Dingwall
Dorin
Epp
Finestone
Fulton
Gagliano
Gerin
Greene
Harvard
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hockin
Horner
Hunter
Jelinek
Kempling
Kilger (Stormont-Du ndas)
Kristiansen
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Langlois
Layton
Loiselle
MacKay
MacWilliam
Anawak
Andre
Atkinson
Baker
Beatty
Bellemare
Bernier
Bjomson
Blackburn (Brant)
Blais
Bouchard (Roberval)
Boyer
Brightwell
Callbeck
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain) Clancy
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cook
Corbeil
Couture
Danis
DeBlois
Della Noce
Dick
Dobbie
Duplessis
Ferland
Fontaine
Gaffney
Gardiner
Gibeau
Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes
Hogue
Hughes
James
Karpoff
Keyes
Koury
Landry
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Larrivee
Lewis
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacLellan
Marleau
The next question is on Motion No. 13 standing in the name of Mr. Reimer.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
We will now proceed to the next question which is on Motion No. 14.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Motion No. 14 deals directly with Motion No. 10. Since Motion No. 10 was defeated, I would submit that there is probably little need to take the second vote on Motion No. 14.
I would suggest to the House that we could perhaps apply the vote on Motion No. 10 to Motion No. 14.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed, and so ordered.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 16, standing in the name of Mr. Pagtakhan.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 17A standing in the name of Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Government Orders

Members


Mr. Scott (Hamilton -Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Since we have the sense of the House on the previous motions, perhaps we could apply the previous vote to Motion No. 17B and move on to the next motions which are of a different context.


Mr. Attewell:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I appreciate what the hon. member said but Motion No. 17B is quite different. It is more explicit and I would like to vote on it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth has suggested a mode of proceeding, but that requires unanimous consent and the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville has not given his consent.
The next question is on Motion No. 17B standing in the name of Mr. Attewell.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
We will proceed to Motion No. 19. Before doing so, the hon. member for Winnipeg North has a point of order.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: Mr. Speaker, I sense the sentiments of the House will likely be identical for Motions Nos. 16 and 19. With unanimous consent, I request through you, Mr. Speaker, that the vote on Motion No. 16 be applied to Motion No. 19.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 19 standing in the name of Mr. Pagtakhan.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		

The next question is on motion No. 24, standing in the name of Mrs. Black.
May 23, 1990

Government Orders
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: May I dispense with the bells?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells? '


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
May 23, 1990


Hon. Andree Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe - Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot, on a point of order.


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, although I was in the House this evening, I
Government Orders
preferred not to vote at the report stage since you appointed me chairman of the legislative committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member.
Pursuant to order made Thursday, May 10, 1990, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 24, 1990