Editing Brian Mulroney (section)

=== Social policy ===

On September 22, 1988, Mulroney issued an official apology on behalf of the Canadian government for [[Japanese Canadian internment]] during World War II. Mulroney's government provided a 300 million dollar compensation package, which included $21,000 to each of the remaining 13,000 survivors, $12 million for a Japanese community fund, and $24 million to create a Canadian race relations foundation.<ref>{{cite web |last1= |first1= |title=Government apologizes to Japanese Canadians in 1988 |url=https://www.cbc.ca/archives/government-apologizes-to-japanese-canadians-in-1988-1.4680546 |website=CBC |access-date=June 30, 2022 |date=September 22, 1988 |archive-date=May 27, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220527213926/https://www.cbc.ca/archives/government-apologizes-to-japanese-canadians-in-1988-1.4680546 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Mulroney argues he set up the [[Deschênes Commission]] of inquiry on Nazi war criminals soon after he was first elected in 1984, even though it was controversial among "communities where Nazi criminals posed as respectable citizens."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cjnews.com/news/criticism-israel-not-necessarily-antisemitic-mulroney|title=Criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic: Mulroney|last1=Arnold|first1=Janice|last2=Reporter|first2=Staff|date=May 13, 2013|website=The Canadian Jewish News|access-date=November 12, 2019|archive-date=November 12, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191112200408/https://www.cjnews.com/news/criticism-israel-not-necessarily-antisemitic-mulroney|url-status=live}}</ref>

On issues of [[Abortion in Canada|abortion]], Mulroney declared he was opposed to "abortion on demand" but gave no details on what that meant legally.<ref>"Silence broken: PM is opposed to abortion on demand." Heather Bird. ''Toronto Star.'' August 3, 1988. p. A.1</ref> In the Spring of 1988, the Mulroney government offered a compromise solution that would give easy access to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and criminalize late-term ones. The law in the House of Commons was defeated 147 to 76 in a [[free vote]], voted against by both MPs who opposed easy access to abortions and those who opposed adding any abortion rules to the Criminal Code. Some pro-life social conservatives who played a role in Mulroney's 1984 landslide were disappointed by this move, as they were in favour of outlawing abortion completely, regardless of the circumstance. In 1989, the government introduced a much stricter bill. If enacted, it would ban all abortions unless a doctor ruled the woman's life or health would be threatened. Anyone found in violation of the law could be imprisoned for up to two years.<ref>"Turner admits abortion bill may be 'best we can get'" Iain Hunter. ''The Ottawa Citizen.'' November 9, 1989. p. A.1.FRO</ref> In another free vote, the House of Commons passed the new bill by nine votes.<ref>"Abortion law passes by nine votes amid protests." Peggy Curran. ''The Gazette.'' May 30, 1990. p. A.1.FRO</ref> A few months later, the bill failed in the Senate on a tie vote. Under the rules of the Senate, a tie meant the measure was defeated.<ref>"Bill's loss may be blessing for Tories." Joan Ramsay. ''The Ottawa Citizen.'' February 2, 1991. p. A.7</ref> This was the last time the federal government attempted to enact abortion laws. Today, abortion in Canada remains completely legal at all stages of pregnancy, regardless of the reason.<ref>{{Cite web |title=History of Abortion in Canada |url=https://nafcanada.org/history-abortion-canada/ |access-date=March 1, 2024 |website=National Abortion Federation Canada |language=en-US |archive-date=January 19, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240119120701/https://nafcanada.org/history-abortion-canada/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 1991, ''[[Frank (magazine)|Frank]]'' magazine ran a satirical advertisement for a contest inviting young Tories to "Deflower [[Caroline Mulroney]]." Her father was incensed and threatened physical harm toward those responsible before joining several women's groups in denouncing the ad as an incitement to rape on national television. Frank's editor [[Michael Bate]], called the spoof, intended to mock her unpopular father for bringing her to public adult-oriented events, "clumsy" but had no regrets. Bate also shared sympathy toward her father's reaction over the spoof.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1993/07/05/to-be-perfectly-frank/7621f45a-de22-4384-abad-d072b4b511b5/|title=To Be Perfectly Frank  ...|last=Trueheart|first=Charles|date=July 5, 1993|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=May 2, 2018|issn=0190-8286|archive-date=February 24, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052814/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1993/07/05/to-be-perfectly-frank/7621f45a-de22-4384-abad-d072b4b511b5/|url-status=live}}</ref>