1967.  As Justice Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau introduces abortion reform bill.

1968.  Pierre Elliot Trudeau elected as Prime Minister of Canada.

1969.  Henry Morgentaler closes family practice in Montreal and dedicates himself to becoming an abortionist. Section 251 of the Canadian Criminal Code amended by Trudeau government, Canada's hellish descent into government-sanctioned abortion-on-demand begins.

1970.  Henry Morgentaler's abortion clinic raided; Morgentaler arrested and charged. Number of induced abortions that year: 11,152 [according to Statistics Canada]

1971. Number of induced abortions that year: 30,949 -- close to triple that of the year before

1972.  Pierre Elliot Trudeau re-elected as Prime Minister of Canada.
Number of induced abortions that year: 38,905

1973.  Henry Morgentaler announces that he has, illegally, aborted 5,000 children. In May of that year, he allows TV cameras to show him aborting child at clinic; abortion shown, on Mother's Day, on national TV. Arrested again, aquitted by jury. In the U.S., abortion laws protecting preborn child struck down in 46 states by Roe v. Wade decision.
Number of induced abortions that year: 43,245

1974.  The Quebec Court of Appeal reverses Morgentaler's jury decision; Morgentaler appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Number of induced abortions that year: 52,435

1975.  The Supreme Court of Canada rejects Morgentaler's appeal; Morgentaler sent to minimum security "nursing home" type of prison for short period. The Parliament of Canada receives the "Petition of One Million": a list of names from Canadians across the country demanding protection for the preborn.
Number of induced abortions that year: 53,705

1976.  Attorney General Ron Basford orders a re-trial for Morgentaler; Henry released from prison and acquited. The Parti Quebecois, coming into power, announces that it will no longer enforce abortion law in that province.
Number of induced abortions that year: 58,712

1977. The Badgely Report, a survey commissioned by the federal government and conducted pro- abortionist, Marion Powell, released. Document recommends further liberalization of Canada's rapidly-deteriorating abortion law.
Number of induced abortions that year: 59,864

1978.  Number of induced abortions that year: 62,351

1979.  Number of induced abortions that year: 65,135

1980.  Federal Liberals return to power after brief turn out of office. Pierre Elliot Trudeau announces plans for new Canadian Constitution.
Number of induced abortions that year: 72,099

1981. Hearings completed on Constitution.
Number of induced abortions that year: 71,911

1982. The Canadian Charter of Rights, which completely deny the rights of the preborn child, become part of the new Constitution. Bertha Wilson, an outspoken pro-abortionist, appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Henry Morgentaler makes plans to open up illegal abortion clinics in Toronto and Winnipeg.
Number of induced abortions that year: 75,071

1983.  Largest-ever pro-life rally staged at Queen's Park in Toronto, with 40,000 in attendance. Morgentaler's illegal abortion clinics raided in Toronto and Winnipeg; he goes on trial in November.
Number of induced abortions that year: 69,368

1984.  Morgentaler acquitted; police raid Toronto abortion clinic and lay new charges. Pierre Elliot Trudeau resigns as Prime Minister; Brian Mulroney elected.
Number of induced abortions that year: 69,449

1985.  Ontario Court of Appeal overturns Morgentaler's jury acquittal.
Number of induced abortions that year: 69,216

1986.  Morgentaler opens up second illegal abortion clinic in Toronto; the Supreme Court of Canada hears Morgentaler appeal.
Number of induced abortions that year: 69,572

1987.  Number of induced abortions that year: 70,023

1988. The Supreme Court of Canada throws out what remains of the abortion law in Canada, making it not illegal (but not legal); Morgentaler acquitted; abortion clinics begin to spread like blight.
Number of induced abortions that year: 72,693

1989.  Morgentaler opens abortion clinic in Nova Scotia. Attempt to define new abortion law in Canada, entitled Bill C-43, introduced in House of Commons.
Number of induced abortions that year: 79,315

1990. Bill C-43 approved in House of Commons.
Number of induced abortions that year: 92,901

1991.  Bill C-43 rejected by Senate. Since then, Canada has been without any abortion law whatsoever.
Number of induced abortions that year: 95,059

1992.  Morgentaler's Toronto abortion clinic destroyed by arson; no suspects found. Ontario's NDP government uses close to half a million dollars in  taxpayers' money to pay for new security systems in all Toronto abortion clinics.
Number of induced abortions that year: 102,085

1993. Ontario's NDP government attempts to promote recommendations listed in "Task Force on Abortion Service Providers" -- a wish list put together by 60 abortionists and abortion advocates.
Number of induced abortions that year: 104,403

1994.  Morgentaler opens up abortion clinic in Ottawa, situated, symbolically, two blocks from Parliament Hill and Supreme Court of Canada Building.
Number of induced abortions that year: 106,255 -- now one out of every three Canadian children aborted has his or her brief life ended in a freestanding, taxpayer-funded abortion clinic

1995.  Alberta Government attempts to defund abortion, but stymied by province's medical associations. Pope John Paul II releases encyclical "The Gospel of Life" March 25, condemning evils of abortion and euthanasia.
Number of induced abortions that year: 106,658

1996.  Winnipeg Child and Family Services seeks court order to get pregnant solvant-abusing mother into treatment programme; order is denied. Carleton Place mother is arrested for shooting child in her womb; verdict is still pending. [Abortion statistics will not be available until Summer 1998]

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance) moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation defining a “human being” as a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and making any and all consequential amendments required.

He said: Madam Speaker, this is the most important issue facing Canada today. In fact, this issue is more important than anything that has been debated in the House since May 1991. Let me explain.

May of 1991 was when Bill C-43, an act respecting abortions, was debated in parliament. That was the last time there was any serious debate about the rights of the unborn in the House. That is a disgrace. For 10 years now successive governments have buried their heads in the sand on this life and death issue. I will correct myself. It is not a life and death issue, it is only a death issue.

Between 1988 and 1998, 1,021,965 unborn babies died because the government did not have the courage to deal with the issue. Now is that time. Those one million unborn do not think this is the best country in the world to live. They never had a chance.

Bill C-43 was actually passed by the House of Commons but was defeated in the Senate by a single vote. One vote was a death sentence to how many babies? After one million have died is the senator who defeated the bill proud? After one million babies have been killed is the government proud of how effectively it killed the debate of this issue?

The unwillingness of the government to even debate the issue, to even study the issue, to even ask Canadians what they think about the issue is criminal negligence if, in fact as I contend, these one million unborn were human beings. Does the government really think it can ignore the fact that 100,000 babies are being killed every year? Does it actually think there are no consequences for its actions?

Before I get into my main remarks, I want to tell the House about a response I got to one of my access to information requests. I asked Health Canada for the documents, reports and correspondence in the department that provided evidence that abortions are medically necessary.

On March 8 Health Canada responded by saying:

I regret to inform you that after a thorough search of all likely record holdings, departmental officials have confirmed that they have no records relevant to your request.

That is amazing. More than 100,000 unborn babies lose their right to live every year and the Department of Health does not have one document that says abortions are even medically necessary.
 
 1735
If they are not medically necessary, why are we doing them? Why are taxpayers paying for them? Why is this happening?

The problem is the way we define a human being in Canadian law. Our legal definition of a human being is wrong and needs to be amended. This is the sole purpose of my motion.

Currently a human being is defined in section 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada as follows:
A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed,
(b) it has independent circulation, or
(c) the navel string is severed.

Motion No. 228 which I put in today states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation defining a “human being” as a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and making any and all consequential amendments required.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada signed, states:

—the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.

In Canadian law there simply is no protection for a child before birth. The Government of Canada cannot discharge its legal obligations under this international agreement, an agreement the federal government and 10 provinces have ratified, unless and until it changes the definition of a human being.

Prior to 1969, all abortions were illegal. From 1969 to 1988, Canada had a law in our criminal code that provided for an abortion only when a therapeutic abortion committee of three doctors agreed that the continuation of a pregnancy would cause harm to the life or health of the mother. The word health was not defined or limited.
In 1988 the supreme court struck down the 1969 abortion law as unconstitutional. The supreme court ruling, commonly referred to as the Morgentaler decision, provided constitutional parameters for a new abortion law.
Based on the instructions from the supreme court justices, in 1990 the government of the day introduced, debated and passed Bill C-43 in the House of Commons. As I mentioned, Bill C-43 was defeated by one vote in the Senate. Since that time the government has not restricted abortions in any way and the unborn have been without any rights. Since then more than one million babies have been aborted while politicians were hoping the issue would just go away.

In 1988 the supreme court said that this is an issue best left to parliament. I say it is time for parliament to assume its responsibility. Many key moral and legal issues such as reproductive technologies, rights of the unborn and a mother's duty of care for her unborn, all hinge on when the law says a child becomes a human being.
Today's definition is unacceptable in my mind. It is debatable in the minds of most people. It is time the debate began. How we define a human being is the place to begin this entire debate. That is why I have introduced this motion.

Since introducing the motion, I have been asked some important questions like why I am trying to ban abortions. While that would be my personal preference, my motion would only ban abortions if the legislation I am asking the government to draft bans them. The more likely consequence of my motion would be that parliament would determine at what point during a pregnancy an unborn human being has rights.
I have also been asked why I am bringing in this motion. Because the current definition of a human being in the criminal code is scientifically incorrect. A baby has to emerge completely from the birth canal before it becomes a human being.
 
 1740
It is obvious to everyone that a baby is a human being before it is born. It is a proven law of science that like things beget like things. Dogs have dogs, cats have cats and people produce people.

I have also been asked about a woman's right to her own body and if my motion is passed whose rights would come first, the child's or the woman's.

I agree that everyone has a right to their own body, until it interferes with the rights of someone else's own body. The problem is that under the Canadian law, the human being growing inside the woman has no rights until he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal. I maintain that at some point during the pregnancy the unborn baby's rights are equal to the woman's rights. Even the United Nations agrees that every unborn child has rights. These rights need the protection of the Government of Canada.

My motion would start a debate in parliament, and in the public, to determine at what point during the pregnancy does the helpless, unborn child deserve protection under Canadian law.

A month ago I had the pleasure to meet and listen to Scott Klusendorf. Scott is a director of bio-ethics for Stand to Reason from San Pedro, California. I was impressed by the simplicity of his approach and his direct hard hitting message. I appreciated his taking the time to meet with the pro-life caucus and with our staff. I thank him for the printed materials he shared with us, some of which I have used in preparing for this debate.

The question we must answer is “Can we kill the unborn?” The answer is “Yes, we can kill the unborn if it is not a human being”. How many have watched a video of what actually happens to a baby during an abortion? After watching any video that depicts the truth, no one can doubt what is being killed is a human being.

When MPs opposite support abortion, they are going against what Canadians would think Liberals normally stand for. Liberals normally pride themselves as defenders of the weakest members of society. Who could be weaker and more defenceless than an unborn baby?

Liberals normally pride themselves in not discriminating against anyone, and I use small l there, but every year they are discriminating against more than 100,000 unborn babies and defending every adult mother's right to kill the baby in her womb, for any reason or for no reason, up to the very moment the baby fully emerges from the birth canal.

During the election, the Liberals attacked pro-life policies and any politician who holds these views. However, who should really be attacked? The Liberals because they approve of killing more than 100,000 unborn babies or me because I want to save the lives of many of these poor, defenceless, unborn babies as possible.

What is so wrong with trying to save as many little unborn babies as we can? What is so wrong with trying to get a real debate in the House about saving these babies' lives? What are we so afraid of? What is the government afraid of?

We are not the scary ones. We are the ones who think the unborn have some rights. The government thinks the unborn has no rights. We are the ones who want to save these babies.

Why do we have a law that allows the killing of a little unborn baby, even when they are eight or nine weeks old? It is like unborn babies are not people. From conception to birth, the unborn are not technically people so it is okay to murder them. However, the moment they emerge from the birth canal, it is a crime to murder them. Where is the sense in that?

Remember when the law did not consider slaves to be people? They were property. Their cries were heard. Liberals agreed this was wrong and the law was changed.

Remember when the law did not consider women to be persons and denied them the vote? Their cries were heard. Liberals agreed this was wrong and the law was changed.

Remember when aboriginal people and Chinese immigrants were not considered people? Their cries were heard. Liberals agreed this was wrong and the law was changed.
 
 1745
It is time we recognize the fact that the unborn are people. It is time someone heard their cries. Their cry is not a silent cry. It is a silent scream. It is time the law was changed. It will take a lot more than one hour of parliament to provide some small measure of justice in the defence of the rights of the unborn. In a moment I will be asking for consent to go beyond that.

Abortion has been defined as the strong and independent exploiting the weak and defenceless. Here we stand, the strong and the independent. We are the only hope for the weak and the defenceless in Canadian society. There is no one weaker and no one more defenceless than an unborn baby. Anti-life activists challenge us by asking why we are forcing our morality on them. I say to them that their morality is being forced on me. When I cannot stand up for what I believe, is that right?

Anti-life activists approve of killing the most weak and defenceless human beings. I am trying to save them. Who is standing on the high moral ground? Abortion is not a complex issue. It involves the honesty of answering one simple question. What is the unborn? That is what I would like parliament to debate. That is what we are here for today.

Madam Speaker, could I request unanimous consent to make the motion that I have before the House votable?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If someone denies unanimous consent, does he or does he not have to be in his seat when he does so? The individual who denied unanimous consent was not in his seat.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I will tell the hon. member and the House that I did hear a no. I did not look over to see if the hon. member was sitting in his seat, but I believe the no came from the parliamentary secretary, who was in his seat.

[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois: I said no, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member said no as well. Because she did not understand the question in English, I repeated it, and she has already said no.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the concerns that motivated the member for Yorkton—Melville to introduce this motion in the House are entirely respectable. They are very important and deserve serious examination.

I wish to take this opportunity to emphasize a few important considerations which are relevant to this motion.
[English]

As the House will appreciate, the views of Canadians diverge significantly on the important issues suggested in the motion. Achieving a consensus is indeed a challenge.

The Government of Canada has been visible in laying the research groundwork necessary to support an informed policy debate on the multitude of issues implied in the motion. There are moral, social, economic and legal implications on health and research, as well as repercussions for the general public, that must be fully explored.
Through its three federal research funding agencies, the Government of Canada seeks to support and promote a framework for conducting ethically sound research.

[Translation]
More recently, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in Dobson v. Dobson. This was a case involving a foetus which had sustained injuries as a result of a car accident in which a pregnant woman died.
What did the Supreme Court of Canada say? It said that it was up to the provincial legislature rather than the courts to find a solution to these questions, given the limitations imposed by the Charter.

All the research done by scientists and researchers, funded through Canada's health research institutes, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, is reviewed according to the standards contained in the tri-council policy statement on ethical conduct for research involving humans.
 
 1750
[English]
In 1998, these three federal research councils developed a joint policy statement for research involving humans. The statement replaces the separate policies that have been in place since the seventies and ensures a co-ordinated approach to all federal funding initiatives in terms of ethical standards.

It is interesting to point out that with its launch in September 1998, Canada became the very first country to produce a comprehensive ethical policy statement for research involving humans in all academic disciplines. The councils believe that sensitive and thoughtful implementation of this policy statement benefits researchers, their institutions and their subject ensuring ethically sound research.

[Translation]
For example, the section of the policy statement dealing with research using gametes, zygotes, embryos and foetuses emphasizes how very central respect for human dignity remains in any ethical, political or social debate.

[English]
The policy statement adheres to the internationally held standard that no research involving human subjects should be started without prior review and approval by a properly constituted and functioning research ethics board.
It requires that research ethic boards be established in institutions where the research is conducted and to contain expertise in the areas being studied: ethical expertise, wider academic representation, community representation, and in most cases legal expertise.

[Translation]
The tri-council policy statement is also an evolving document. Given the complexity of the considerations surrounding the ethics of research involving humans, the federal research agency releases regular updates to the tri-council policy statement and is open to any comments or discussions at any time.

[English]
We in Canada are lucky to have outstanding scientists and researchers. As Dr. Alan Bernstein, president of the Canadian Institute of Health Research, recently pointed out:
With the right structure, the right vision and the right resources, there's no doubt we can more than play our fair share in this exciting revolution in health research in the 21st century.

[Translation]
This revolution in health research must incorporate ethical standards which will reflect in our policies and programs the values with which we are comfortable in this country.

Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Madam Speaker, today's debate revolves around three points: first, the recognition of a fetus or embryo as a human being; second, the fact that it can be conceived naturally or otherwise, in the womb of the mother or not; and third, if the motion is agreed to, the resulting legislation ought to provide that “any and all consequential amendments required” shall be made. This would involve discussions on abortion, and the regulation of embryo or fetal tissue use for research purposes.
Despite all the respect I have for my colleague from Yorkton—Melville, it must be acknowledged that this bill is treacherous, deceitful and misleading.

First, it refers to new reproductive technologies on which this House has not yet been informed.
This bill has links to previous discussions held in past parliaments, on which we have already reached conclusions. The subject matters are, admittedly, closely linked. A person is either for or against abortion, for or against recognition of the fetus as a human being.

Given the situation, I venture to believe that colleagues here present will agree that such a bill would be unacceptable and will act accordingly. As Bloc Quebecois critic for the status of women, however, I must present the position of a heavy majority of Canadian and Quebec women on the two components of this issue.
 
 1755
There are two radically different and opposed concepts involved in this debate. While some defend the right of everyone to chose life, their opponents see but one thing: life at all cost.

The argument for the embryo being considered a person from the moment of conception is that, when the nuclei are fused, the entire program for the development of that being until death has been set. Yet the celebrated physician and theologian Alberto Bondolfi, after thorough examination of the question, stated that, while a fetus is neither a thing nor a tissue, it cannot however be treated as a human person from the time of birth.
Nor must we deliberately ignore the definitive caesura of birth, what Hans Saner called the fundamental shift in worlds.

We must recall that, up until birth, the embryo is not an independent being. Most philosophers, ethicists, theologians, men and women, Catholics and non-Catholics, make a fundamental distinction between prenatal life and the being after birth.

Furthermore, neither the Canadian constitution nor international conventions confer on an embryo the right to life. Here in Canada, there is even a fairly major controversy over the extent of the federal government's jurisdiction in this regard.

During the 33rd Parliament, the government introduced a motion for debate and a vote in order to obtain the advice of parliament on the wording of new legislation concerning the recognition of the fetus as a human being, and the criminalization of abortion. This motion was not passed and, of note, no female MPs voted in favour of the motion.
In 1988, Canada gave the woman in question the fundamental right, protected by the constitution, to make a free and independent decision. Various private member's bills to restrict access to abortion were introduced during the 34th and 35th Parliaments, but none made it past second reading.

One could also talk about the policy stands taken by governments of other countries in favour of freedom of choice. Even the European Commission of Human Rights pointed out that the expression “any person” in its second article, which guarantees the right to life, does not apply to an unborn child.

Abortion and birth control practices date back to the earliest civilizations. Even today, a number of traditional societies use plants that cause sterility or abortions for birth control.

But it was in the middle ages that abortion was considered criminal. Assemblies of bishops—men—condemned it in a number of decrees. I would point out to members that today's proposal is being advanced by men. History makes abundant mention of the fact that attitudes toward abortion were influenced by religious beliefs, customs and attitudes to women and the family.

Despitereligious bans, women continued to use plants that cause sterility, turning to charlatans of the day or to witchcraft in order to have an abortion, at the risk of their life.

Today,in these so-called modern times, religious considerations continue to surround the debate on abortion. However, in the Bible, the Christian message does not mention it. What may be understood from the Bible is that each woman is free to choose independently and according to her own conscience.

In the New Testament, Luke reports the sentence Jesus said “Woe unto you also, ye lawyers. For ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers”.
 
 1800
This brings me to a discussion of the fundamental rights of women. The decision to have a child or not is no light matter. It is one of the weightiest decisions to be made in the life of a woman. It is for her and her alone to choose in full knowledge of the facts to end a pregnancy.

Who are we to intervene in such a personal decision? To prevent a woman from ending a pregnancy obliges her to bear a child, and this obligation is contrary to the fundamental rights of women. Is it up to us to rule behaviour and conscience by imposing our concept of life?

A woman has a right to life, health, physical integrity, freedom of conscience, moral independence, the right to make her own decisions and to choose motherhood freely, a right recognized fundamentally the world over.
To decide against having a child is also to decide for something: one's own life and the life of one's family, to procreate later, when the woman is able in more favourable conditions. It is a responsible decision that considers the impact of one's own choices. And it is not wrong to do that.

To truly protect life is first and foremost to protect the life aspirations and perspectives of women. It is to prevent undesired pregnancies and to ensure that every child is wanted. It is to create conditions through appropriate social policy so that motherhood may be lived in full awareness and in joy.

Is the hon. member aware only of the responsibilities a woman faces when she is pregnant and when she has a child to raise?

Pregnancy is not just about reproduction; it is about the ability to have access to appropriate clinical services; it is about access to information and assistance; it is about parenting skills; it is about being able to raise a child without living in abject poverty; it is about the availability of services that will ensure both mother and child of quality of life.

Why is the hon. member not calling for free and universally accessible health and social services? Why is he not calling for measures against poverty as it involves women? Why is he not calling for social housing? Why is he not calling for legislation that would force men to pay child support and shoulder their responsibilities? With the one and a half million children living in poverty, without three meals a day, why is he not calling for the House to legislate on that? And I could go on and on in this vein.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are of the opinion that defining a human being as a fetus and making consequential amendments will initiate a debate that will take us back to the middle ages.

Fortunately, public opinion has changed a good deal over the past 30 years on this issue. I can only hope that my parliamentary colleagues will become aware of this reality and act accordingly.

[English]
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the motion. For those who might be following the debate on television, let us be clear that this is a motion, not a bill. Before I begin my remarks I will reread the motion for the record and then comment on the remarks of the three previous speakers.

The motion is fairly simple and yet extremely complex:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation defining a “human being” as a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and making any and all consequential amendments required.

First of all, I wish to commend the hon. member who moved the motion for doing just that. I wish to commend him as well on his concise and correct history of this issue in Canada.

I want to remind the people who have spoken and people who are watching that this is not some esoteric topic that we are trying to impose here. There already is, as the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville pointed out, a definition of human being. It is already in the criminal code.
 
 1805
The issue is this: are we as Canadians comfortable with the definition that is already there, or should we, based on whatever considerations we believe to be correct, amend that definition?. We are not going back to the middle ages by reviewing the question, which is already in the criminal code. The question is simple. First, where does human life begin, and second, where does society wish to protect human life?

We already know that society at least wishes to protect human life from the time stated in the criminal code, and that is, as we have heard, when the child exits the womb, whether breathing or not. The question now is do we wish to extend that protection backward, or shall we say forward, to the development of the child? That is, in my opinion, a reasonable question to ask. That is all we are doing. That is all this motion is trying to do. It is trying to bring this issue to the forefront.

The parliamentary secretary, in his remarks, which I found to be respectful, recognized the importance of some of the comments that were made by the mover. I do not want to be completely complimentary of the mover of the motion because I do not think this matter should be dealt with in a partisan way. I do not think this matter should be debated by pointing fingers to this side of the House and saying what this side of the House does and what they do not do over there, or anything like that. This is a bigger issue than a political issue. This is an issue of life and death and should not be discussed on a partisan basis.

I will remind listeners that the votes and the bills talked about by the mover were brought forward by a Conservative government. The votes were free, except for cabinet ministers, and people voted for or against the legislation for a variety of reasons.

To educate the member from the Bloc Quebecois, I can tell her that there were women on this side of the House who voted against the legislation, not because it so-called offended the rights of women, but because it did not go far enough to protect the unborn child. Of course she was not here at that time so she might not know. I was.
I found it interesting when the member from the Bloc Quebecois said that this matter had been dealt with and therefore we should not deal with it again. It is a very interesting philosophy from a party dedicated to the breaking up of the country. That matter has been dealt with. There was a referendum. What legitimacy does that person have to sit in the House and attempt to break up the country when the matter has been dealt with? We cannot have it both ways. If a matter has been dealt with, fine, then it has been dealt with, but we cannot pick and choose which matters have been dealt with and which matters have not.

I am a lawyer. I do not know if the Bloc member is, but in my view she misstated the holding of the Supreme Court of Canada. It was correctly stated that the Supreme Court of Canada found that there were technical reasons why the law that was in place was not in accordance with the constitution and it did turn the ball back to the Parliament of Canada to do whatever it wished to do in order to correct that. There is no legal right to abortion in this country, according to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is a misstatement of the Morgentaler decision.

She also mentioned the Bible. I was not going to mention the Bible because as soon as one does that, one imposes one's views. However, the member opposite mentioned the Bible. I would just like to remind her about a little story in the Bible which I am sure she is familiar with. When Mary, who was going to become the mother of Jesus, visited her cousin Elizabeth, who was carrying John the Baptist, the baby leapt in her womb, says the Bible, in anticipation of the great joy of Jesus being born. The Bible uses those words, the baby leapt in her womb. Not the fetus, not the zygote, not the embryo, but the baby leapt in her womb for joy. That is from the New Testament.

I do not want to talk about the New Testament. I want to talk about the motion. The parliamentary secretary said there is no consensus in Canada on the issue of abortion. I do not want to talk necessarily about abortion. I want to talk about the definition of human being. Of course abortion is one of the consequences, as the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois correctly stated.
 
 1810
There are a number of consequences that flow from this motion. One of them is, what is the definition of human being? There is no consensus on that issue, as we have already heard in the debate, but does that mean there is no truth? There was no consensus that the earth was round. In fact I would say that the majority of people thought at one time that the earth was flat. Did that make the earth flat? No.

At one time the majority of people around the world felt it was perfectly reasonable to have slaves. Even the Bible mentions it. It is mentioned in the laws of Moses as to what the Hebrews are to do with their slaves. At one time slavery was considered to be perfectly acceptable and in some countries it still is. Does that make it perfectly acceptable? No.

The truth is that slavery is wrong and the truth is that the earth is round, no matter how many people say that slavery is acceptable and no matter how many people say the earth is flat.
Is what is inside the womb a human being? That cannot be decided by consensus. It is either a truth or it is not. Let us look at that.

As was mentioned by the previous speaker, we have a law of science. It is undisputed. It is the law of biogenesis. It is very simple and very logical and it cannot be argued, that is, like begets like, period, full stop. Two hamsters cannot produce a frog. Two dogs cannot produce a cat. Two humans cannot produce anything other than a human. That is simply a fact.

Once a fertilized egg has been conceived by the act of procreation of two humans, that is the commencement of human life according to the law of biogenesis. If that is the commencement of human life, does that life need protection? Let us look at it philosophically.

We are talking about human rights and protecting against discrimination, but we cannot talk about the discrimination that the unborn child has. It has no rights. It has an absolute impossibility of protecting itself from a decision that another person makes about its very right to breathe.

Do you not find it interesting, Madam Speaker, that on the one hand it is perfectly acceptable and legal in Canada at the present time to kill an unborn child at any point of its development, right up until it comes out of the womb, yet on the other hand we are wringing our hands about the ethics of experimentation on zygotes?
Where is the logic in that? How can it be logical to permit a third trimester abortion at eight months without blinking our eyes and wring our hands about whether or not a fertilized egg is going to be flushed down a scientist's drain?

Let us start thinking about the realities of what we are talking about. Do we discriminate on the basis of size? No. Therefore we should not discriminate on the basis of the size of the fetus. Do we discriminate on the basis of level of development? No. If someone has a lower IQ than someone else we do not discriminate. Therefore, why do we discriminate because the unborn child has a lesser level? It is the same with its environment and degree of dependency.

This is an issue of fundamental human rights. The issue should be discussed in parliament. All of the views should be aired and decisions should be made. We should not be afraid of discussing the issue. I commend the hon. member for bringing it forward.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I too commend my colleague from Yorkton—Melville for bringing this motion forward.

It has of course been a topic where there are deep feelings on both sides of the abortion issue. The motion specifically talks about the government bringing in legislation defining a human being as a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not, and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and making any and all consequential amendments required.

I want to state my unequivocal and unqualified support for the motion and be very clear about that.
 
 1815
I want to take a minute or two to rebut the comments made by my colleague from the Bloc. The member for Scarborough Southwest spent some time on that as well so I will not go into great detail, but he made a good point when he said that her argument was logically inconsistent in regard to the separation issue being dealt with and that we should just leave it alone. She claimed that because the abortion issue, in her mind, has been settled and closed, we should not go there. That is logically inconsistent.

She also claimed that the opposition to this particular idea of redefining what is a human, or the definition of a person, is, in and of itself, one that is religious in its nature. I would disagree with that. I would say that it is a moral issue and one where individuals, who are both religious and non-religious but who are, what we might say, absolutists who believe in right and wrong, would find broad agreement. Those who would say that abortion is wrong would be absolutists, and I would include myself as an absolutist. I therefore reject the premise of her argument that it is simply a religious argument for those who speak against abortion.

A very big dilemma in this whole issue of abortion has to do with the definition of a human being. My colleagues have talked about the legal definition. It is in statute right now that a human is a human when the person leaves the birth canal. That creates a dilemma for many of us specifically because of the technology and advancement within our world in terms of medical sciences.

We know that in one room we may have a doctor performing microsurgery with the latest technology to save the life of what some may call a fetus, an unborn child who might be six months in its development, while in the very next room we might have somebody else in a very similar situation having the termination of a pregnancy or an abortion. That is a big dilemma. How do we explain that? How do we deal with that?

On the one hand, we are seeing medical dollars allocated to saving the life of an unborn child through microsurgery and, on the other hand, in the next room a child is being aborted. That has been a great dilemma for people who are both pro-choice and pro-life.

We could have agreement from many pro-choice individuals and pro-life people, people who would identify themselves as such, that in terms of partial birth abortions, or late term abortions, that we should look at redefining the definition of a human. We must scale it back, or as my colleague says, scale it forward.

The debate is, when does life begin. I believe life begins at conception. Many members in this place believe that. That is the fundamental question, the philosophical debate that we have around the issue. It does get very emotional.

We would do well to try and strip away as best we can those emotional catch phrases, in many ways similar to the kinds of partisan debates that can take place in the House on many different issues. We must remove that aspect in the debate and have reasoned debate taking into account the technologies that are available and that our understanding has changed from when this practice of abortion became commonplace in the sixties and throughout the seventies. We must re-examine the question and it is only fair that we re-examine it.

Yes, it has been dealt with previously, but does that mean that because we have made a decision on something, we cannot go back and open it up?

My Bloc colleague also said she was speaking for her party. I think that was a mistake because I know she has colleagues that would identify themselves as pro-life. This being private members' business, it is good for members to state their positions. We have individuals in our caucus that are both pro-life and pro-choice, and I think that would be the case for all parties. We should talk about the issue and open up the debate.
 
 1820
As a man, individuals have asked me why I feel I have the right to even speak on this particular issue. As a man, I am also the husband of a wife. There are a lot of women in my life but just one wife whom I love dearly. I am the father of three beautiful daughters, the uncle of eight beautiful nieces and the son to a mother. I have many other close friends who are women.

I have two very close friends who had abortions earlier on in their lives. They have reflected many years later on that experience. One was put in the position of being with an abusive husband who forced her to go through with this particular act, and she did. The second time she became pregnant, she was being forced to do again. However, she left her husband and gave birth to a son. There are countless stories of individuals who have been put in that situation.

Another friend had an abortion at a very young age. She told me she wished she had received counsel on this particular issue before embarking on this choice.

There are other solutions and other things that we can look at. Some say it is wrong to force a woman to remain pregnant. There is another possible solution for those women who find themselves in an unfortunate circumstance, and that is adoption. Abortion is one possible solution but so is adoption. I have many friends who are adopted.
We are losing generations of children every year. There are 100,000 children a year who will not walk with us in this world, who will not be able to contribute to our society and who will not be the doctors, the lawyers, the scholars, the workers and the people across the strata of our society. That is an issue we need to examine.
When we make a decision to end a child's life, are we making a decision to end the life of someone who might have a great and profound impact on our society? Each and every life is important. Each and every life will have a profound impact the child's family of course but also within a greater sphere as well in their lives.

I wrap up my comments by saying that I support the motion. We need to approach this topic in a reasoned and rational way. We need to bring forward the knowledge that we received from the great science and technology advancements in our society. We need to work together, even individuals who disagree on this particular topic. We should look for some common ground. We can start by redefining life at an earlier stage. I think pro-life and pro-choice people would have a broad consensus on the issue of partial birth abortion.

It is a worthwhile motion. It is one that is emotional but it is worthwhile because it is the definition of life, which is the most important question in all of our entire lives.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member on bringing the issue before the House. I believe that life begins at conception and ends at natural death. That is precisely what the intent was of the motion before the House.

One of the issues I worked on in the House was fetal alcohol syndrome which relates to the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy and leads to very serious problems. The House might be interested to know that a number of jurisdictions in the United States have laws where chronic or irresponsible drinking during pregnancy is now considered a criminal offence and is equal to or equivalent to child abuse. That was very interesting because it was the first time I heard of the rights of the unborn being protected.
 
 1825
It shows the House and all members that things are changing. Things do change. Science is changing. We can operate on unborn children, examine them, do all kinds of microsurgery, et cetera. All of a sudden we need to start thinking about fundamentals, about what the difference is. The member from Scarborough says size, the degree of independence and the level of development can be different in and outside the womb.

Nothing really changes. That convention was established a long time ago and I suspect it will be debated for a long time to come. However I lend my support to the member's motion because I believe it is an important issue for all Canadians to consider, to have input into and to understand. Children, as one can imagine, are celebrated every day in the world, even unborn children. All one needs to do is go to a baby shower and ask what everyone is celebrating.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I thank all hon. members who have spoken in support of my motion. I appreciate that. I thank them for putting politics aside and standing for what is right. Some who have spoken are more eloquent than I on this issue.

The question I have asked is: What is the unborn? I have talked about the abortion issue and will continue to do so because it is one of the key consequences of my motion. I will briefly reply to some of the people who oppose the motion.

Anti-life advocates or those who oppose the motion say that abortion is a private matter. The response to that is we do not allow child abuse if it is done in private. Those who oppose the motion will say that many poor women cannot afford to raise another child. The answer is obvious: We do not kill people just because it is too expensive to care for them.

Those who oppose the motion say killing a fetus is not the same as killing a person. The response is that it comes down to a simple question: What is the unborn? By the way, Madam Speaker, did you know that the word fetus means little one?

Opponents to the motion will ask whether we think a woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world. The response is obvious: The homeless around us are unwanted, but we do not kill them. If the unborn are human beings they deserve the same protection as other human beings. In Canada they do not have that protection. We are one of the few countries that does not provide it.

For the government to defend its current stand supporting abortion, it must offer a better definition of a human being than currently exists in the criminal code. I ask that they produce evidence that the unborn are not human.
If people could produce evidence that the unborn are not human, I suspect that the people supporting the motion and I would walk away from the debate immediately. Some will respond by saying that no one can prove whether the unborn are human so we will keep killing them anyway. We cannot accept that. What if the criminal code is wrong? What if we are killing human beings when we kill a fetus? Is the question not worthy of a full debate in the House?

I will offer three scientific reasons as to why an unborn child is a human being. First, the unborn is genetically distinct from its parents. It is not just a part of the woman. Second, the unborn has human parents and human parents can only produce human offspring. Third, the unborn is genetically complete. It is a self-integrating organism.

In a paper presented to the 1978 meeting of the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians in San Diego, California, abortionist Dr. Warren Hern, in describing the abortion procedure, said:
The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.
 
 1830
An unborn child differs from a newborn child in only four ways: It is smaller; it is not as well developed; it is located inside its mother; and it is more dependent. Those are the only differences. The evidence is clear that the unborn are human beings. They deserve protection. After 10 years of not debating the issue and not talking about it in the House, they deserve a fair hearing.

In conclusion, we could probably all reach a decision. We need to talk about the issue. I think people on both sides of the debate would agree that what we have in the criminal code is not enough. There must be some point at which we can agree that pre-born children must have protection.

Because I think the debate should continue, I respectfully request the House to refer the motion to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that parliament can hear what Canadians think. The committee can hear from scientists and from people on both sides.

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House for that to be done on the issue at some point. When the government feels it is appropriate, this should be discussed by the justice committee. I hope this has been enough of an indication that we need to further debate the issue.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being 6.32 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.)

You are the 887th person to access this site.