November 22, 1979

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES

LIB

Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier

Liberal

Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration who, I understand, is responsible for the administration of government annuities. Thousands of Canadians have invested in government annuities in the hope of having a cushion for financial requirements when they retire.

In view of the fact that the rate of return on annuities was reviewed because of important variations in interest rates under the Government Annuities Improvement Act which was adopted by the previous government, would the minister tell the House whether he plans to raise the rate of interest on annuities to a level higher or close to the level of inflation, to help Canadians who invested in Canada in good faith?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES
Sub-subtopic:   CIVIL SERVICE RECIPIENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Permalink
PC

Ronald George Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me an opportunity to indicate that we have that matter currently

November 22, 1979

Privilege-Mr. Knowles

under review. I hope to be able to report back to him and other hon. members opposite in the very near future.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES
Sub-subtopic:   CIVIL SERVICE RECIPIENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Permalink

PETRO-CANADA FINANCING THEREOF

LIB

Paul Edmund McRae

Liberal

Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it true that the recommendations of the task force on PetroCan are hung up in cabinet, due to the resistance of the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, because they do not want to assume the cost of servicing the debt minus the assets and cash flow? If this is true, what changes can we expect in the bill that would be different from the recommendations?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PETRO-CANADA FINANCING THEREOF
Permalink
PC

Walter David Baker (Minister of National Revenue; President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Walter Baker (President of Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's imagination knows no bounds. I just want to assure him that, as the Prime Minister mentioned a few days ago, the matter of the report of the task force and the question with respect to PetroCan is under review by the government. When that review is completed an announcement will be made in the House in the appropriate way.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PETRO-CANADA FINANCING THEREOF
Permalink

THE CANADIAN ECONOMY

LIB

Paul Edmund McRae

Liberal

Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):

Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board? Given the present interest rates, could the minister indicate how much the annual cost of servicing that debt would be, and from which envelope he expects to pick the money?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Sub-subtopic:   INTEREST RATE-SERVICING OF DEBT
Permalink
PC

John Carnell Crosbie (Minister of Finance)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

Order paper!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Sub-subtopic:   INTEREST RATE-SERVICING OF DEBT
Permalink
PC

Sinclair McKnight Stevens (President of the Treasury Board)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of Treasury Board):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree that the hon. member's question is purely hypothetical and a very difficult one for me to answer without the figures being supplied.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Sub-subtopic:   INTEREST RATE-SERVICING OF DEBT
Permalink

PRIVILEGE

NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I indicated to you by a note that I would raise a question of privilege, although perhaps it is more properly a point of order.

When the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Richardson) put his question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare

(Mr. Crombie) on the question of abortion, he indulged in a non sequitur that made me feel I had a point of order right then. However, I decided I would respect the traditions of this House and wait until the question period was over.

I must say, however, that 1 think it is quite unfair, in the question period, to drag in some other member's name on a subject not related to the point of the question, giving that other member no chance to reply. This is precisely what the hon. member for Beaches did. He said that the member for Winnipeg North Centre was opposed to changes in the rules respecting the rights of private members.

My colleagues around here have been reminding me of the number of changes in the rules for which I have had some responsibility over the years. I welcome the prospect of a white paper on procedure and the opportunity to discuss our rules and to bring them up to date.

I suppose that what the hon. member has seen-I have not but I know I have said this sort of thing to the media-is that, much as I want to see improvements, particularly for private members, I would resist changes that were purely for the purpose of relieving the government of its responsibility to take a stand on issues such as capital punishment and abortion.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PRIVILEGE
Sub-subtopic:   MR. KNOWLES-RESTATEMENT OF POSITION ON RULE CHANGES
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PRIVILEGE
Sub-subtopic:   MR. KNOWLES-RESTATEMENT OF POSITION ON RULE CHANGES
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

The government has control of this House and can deal with these matters, and its will can prevail if it so wishes. My protest has been against using something as important-almost as sacred-as the rules of this House to relieve the government of its responsibility.

The statement to the effect that 1 was opposed to improving the rules for the private members of this House is totally and utterly false and a non sequitur.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PRIVILEGE
Sub-subtopic:   MR. KNOWLES-RESTATEMENT OF POSITION ON RULE CHANGES
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PRIVILEGE
Sub-subtopic:   MR. KNOWLES-RESTATEMENT OF POSITION ON RULE CHANGES
Permalink
PC

Robin Mark Richardson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Robin Richardson (Beaches):

Mr. Speaker, 1 am very glad that the hon. member has explained his position. I was responding to what I had read in the Toronto Star a few weeks ago.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PRIVILEGE
Sub-subtopic:   MR. KNOWLES-RESTATEMENT OF POSITION ON RULE CHANGES
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PRIVILEGE
Sub-subtopic:   MR. KNOWLES-RESTATEMENT OF POSITION ON RULE CHANGES
Permalink
PC

Robin Mark Richardson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Richardson (Beaches):

From what I have read, it was my impression that he was opposed to this much needed reform. I am very glad to hear that he is fully in support of this much needed reform for private members' bills.

1 would ask the hon. member to accept my apology. I am sorry that I misunderstood his position and I am glad that he clarified it.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PRIVILEGE
Sub-subtopic:   MR. KNOWLES-RESTATEMENT OF POSITION ON RULE CHANGES
Permalink

MRS. APPOLLONI-VIVISECTION OF HUMAN FETUSES

LIB

Ursula Appolloni

Liberal

Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the answer which the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacDonald) gave to me in the House yesterday and which is also printed on page 1 550 of Hansard.

November 22, 1979

If 1 might comment on that answer, Mr. Speaker, I note with a considerable amount of astonishment that in speaking on matters of life and death the minister stated, and 1 quote:

-most important of all I understand that these particular studies were carried on in 1976.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the most important factor of all is not when these studies were carried out but whether the experiments were carried out on live human beings. In this connection, the minister stated three times that "no operations were performed on any live human materiar.

Section 206 of the Criminal Code provides that a child becomes a human being within the meaning of the code when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.

In the experiments described in the "Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism", we are told-and I would be happy to table these journals, if necessary-that the babies came into the hands of the scientists following the procedure of hysterotomy. This is a method of abortion which removes a living and not a dead baby as opposed, say, to saline abortions. The same records described some of the subjects of vivisection as having reached the age of 25 weeks in fetal age. Fetal age, of course, is about two weeks behind what the normal age of gestation would be, judging by the date of the last menstrual period. In other words, from an obstetrician's point of view, these babies would be two weeks older, which is important in considering their viability. This is an age when doctors of the Women's College Hospital in Toronto can now frequently manage to ensure the life of a child.

Having established that the child was removed live from the body of its mother, we now face the question of whether it was still alive at the time at which the heart was punctured which, again, according to the same reports, occurred immediately after hysterotomy; that is, when the baby was still alive.

Again, referring to the records in the "Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism", we find that 8 cc's of blood were removed from some of the subjects. On the authority of several independent scientists with whom 1 have been in contact, it is well nigh impossible to remove that amount of blood from the heart of a subject whose heart was not still pumping. Furthermore-

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   MRS. APPOLLONI-VIVISECTION OF HUMAN FETUSES
Permalink

November 22, 1979